The Corner

End of the Road for the Stem-Cell Lawsuit

This morning, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal in the long-running court casechallenging the Obama administration’s policy of funding research on embryonic stem cells.

The legal challenge, which has been winding its way through the courts since August 2009, has been based on the argument that embryonic-stem-cell research violates the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, a law that prohibits the federal government from funding research in which human embryos are created or destroyed. The stem-cell policy that President Obama put in place in 2009 permits federal funding for research on new lines of stem cells that were created (without federal funding) by destroying embryos donated by in vitro fertilization patients.

The case might have been made moot had Mitt Romney won in November and announced plans to change the policy, but with an Obama victory and a defeat in the courts, the federal government seems set to continue funding research on the products of destroyed human embryos for at least the next four years.

In the meantime, research on alternatives to embryonic stem cells, particularly on the induced pluripotent stem cells invented by Nobel laureate Shinya Yamanaka in 2007, offers the chance for the life-saving medical promise of stem cells to be advanced without destroying nascent human life. As a major report on the stem-cell debatesreleased last year by the Witherspoon Council on Ethics and the Integrity of Science argued, “the potential circumvention of the embryonic stem cell controversy by scientific advances shows how conflicts between ethics and science need not always be irreconcilable.”

The example of the stem-cell debates shows that scientific progress, rightly understood and directed, can help to resolve some of the ethical problems that science itself raises. Defenders of human life should continue to make their strong ethical case for pursuing medical science without destroying embryonic human life — a case that, after today’s Supreme Court decision, will need to return to the political arena.

— Brendan P. Foht is assistant editor of The New Atlantis: A Journal of Technology & Society.

Most Popular

White House

Another Warning Sign

The Mueller report is of course about Russian interference in the 2016 election and about the White House's interference in the resulting investigation. But I couldn’t help also reading the report as a window into the manner of administration that characterizes the Trump era, and therefore as another warning ... Read More
Film & TV

Jesus Is Not the Joker

Actors love to think they can play anything, but the job of any half-decent filmmaker is to tell them when they’re not right for a part. If the Rock wants to play Kurt Cobain, try to talk him out of it. Adam Sandler as King Lear is not a great match. And then there’s Joaquin Phoenix. He’s playing Jesus ... Read More

Supreme Court Mulls Citizenship Question for Census

Washington -- The oral arguments the Supreme Court will hear on Tuesday will be more decorous than the gusts of judicial testiness that blew the case up to the nation’s highest tribunal. The case, which raises arcane questions of administrative law but could have widely radiating political and policy ... Read More

What’s So Great about Western Civilization

EDITOR’S NOTE: The following is Jonah Goldberg’s weekly “news”letter, the G-File. Subscribe here to get the G-File delivered to your inbox on Fridays. Dear Reader (Redacted: Harm to Ongoing Matter), One of the things I tell new parents is something that was told to me when my daughter still had that ... Read More
White House

The Mueller Report Should Shock Our Conscience

I've finished reading the entire Mueller report, and I must confess that even as a longtime, quite open critic of Donald Trump, I was surprised at the sheer scope, scale, and brazenness of the lies, falsehoods, and misdirections detailed by the Special Counsel's Office. We've become accustomed to Trump making up ... Read More