Winning the stem cell argument

Since the US breakthrough in embryonic stem cell research last December, American politicians have been limbering themselves up for a fight over whether such research should receive federal funding. But, as we report in this week's BioNews, it might not be as much of a battle as had been previously assumed.

Republican senator Strom Thurmond (South Carolina), a conservative on such issues, has come out in favour of human embryonic stem cell research, to the surprise of many. Thurmond's attitude suggests that some pro-life politicians in the United States may not take an entirely negative view of federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. It also suggests that when it comes to moral attitudes towards embryo research, it matters greatly why the research is taking place.

Embryo research has been a contentious issue since Robert Edwards first started research into IVF in the late 1960s. American scientists have been subject to a number of moratoria and bans since that time and, in the 1990s, have been prevented from receiving federal funding to work on human embryos. The power and influence of pro-life politicians and activists have simply been too great to win the argument for publicly funded human embryo research. But those times might be over. The American discussion around stem cell research has focused upon the medical benefits which might emerge from it. This emphasis upon human health might just swing public and political opinion in favour of embryo research and lead to a reversal of the ban on federal funding.

In Britain, it was genetics that helped to win the argument for embryo research. Although research had been focused on finding treatments for female infertility, later research - and the fortunate development of a method for testing small amounts of DNA - brought about the development of preimplantation genetic testing: the genetic analysis of cells from early human embryos. The breakthrough came just as legislation on embryo research was being debated in the Houses of Parliament. And it proved vital in the effort to win parliamentary support for embryo research. Why? Because the idea that research might improve the understanding of disease and how to avoid it seemed - at least to politicians - a more persuasive argument in its favour.

This same attitude seems to be prevalent in the debate around embryo research in the United States today. Where appeals for the infertile have failed, stem cell research may succeed. But whatever argument it takes to reverse the federal funding ban, it won't come a day too soon.