Scientific and technological advances over the last century, especially those in the medical and bio-technology fields, have been a blessing. Life expectancy is reaching once unimaginable levels, and diseases that were once killers are now simply nuisances that can usually be prevented or at least controlled with medication. But, sometimes these advancements outstrip our ability to reflect ethically on their ramifications and consequences. As the Nazis proved, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

Embryonic stem cell research is one of those issues that's been caught up in these kinds of debates. While the vast majority of Americans support embryonic stem-cell research, a vocal opposition has been raising ethical and moral questions that have stymied efforts to fund research at the federal level. In 2006, when President Bush issued his first presidential veto and turned back a bipartisan bill to fund research, he argued that the destruction of embryos (even frozen ones that would be discarded if not implanted) crossed a moral boundary he was unwilling to support. This occurred despite polls suggesting that about 70 percent of Americans support this research.

With a ban on federal funds in place, many states, including California, have tried to fill the gap with state funding. Research is also being pursued overseas, but at least at the federal level the United States has opted out of the race to find the next “great cure.” That veto has delayed federal funding, but bipartisan efforts to find ways of funding the research continue to be pursued in Congress. The hope there is either a change of heart by the president, or a veto-proof majority.

As for the science involved, the National Institute of Health's Web site defines a stem cell as a cell with “the remarkable potential to develop into many different cell types in the body. Serving as a sort of repair system for the body, they can theoretically divide without limit to replenish other cells, as long as the person or animal is still alive.” It's believed by a majority of scientists in this field that embryonic stem cells offer the best hope of finding cures for many of the scourges that plague human life, including Parkinson's and Alzheimer's diseases. If this is true, then how can we not pursue the research?

The recently trumpeted news that amniotic cells might provide a promising source of stem-cell lines has been jumped on by opponents of embryonic stem-cell research, who argue that these lines should substitute for the more controversial embryonic lines. The reality is that even the researcher who made the discovery says that amniotic lines are a supplement not a replacement for the embryonic lines. Therefore, if we wish to find hoped for cures, we still must continue research on embryonic lines.

Opponents of embryonic stem cell research liken it to abortion, believing that if life begins at conception, then even frozen embryos represent human life and deserve protection. Therefore, the central moral/ethical questions turn on our definition of life's beginning point. Still, if the embryos under consideration are leftovers from in vitro fertilization efforts and will be discarded if not used, are we really talking about human life? Besides, if this research could possibly benefit untold numbers of people, wouldn't this be the most pro-life action one could pursue? A majority of Americans would answer this second question in the affirmative.

Much of the opposition to the research is religiously based, but the religious community isn't of one mind on this issue. In fact, the normative religious texts are largely silent on this and many other scientific questions. Neither the Bible (Jewish or Christian versions) nor the Quran speak directly to this issue, and so we're left debating broader issues such as when life begins and whether people who might benefit from potential treatments should have priority over the potentiality of these embryos. Many of us who have watched Alzheimer's and Parkinson's rob friends and loved ones of dignity and life, have concluded that we should pursue these promising treatments.

Still, the question of when life begins nags at us, and in this our religious texts don't offer conclusive guidance. The Quran argues strenuously for the preservation of life, but it also distinguishes between potential life and life itself. The same is true of the Hebrew Bible, while the Christian New Testament is silent. I can't say with certainty when life begins, but my moral inclination is to protect life wherever possible. That being said, if embryos are destined to degrade or be destroyed before fulfilling their potentiality, then surely it would be the moral thing to use them to pursue research that could lead to important cures and treatments. This, it would seem to me, is the moral imperative of our day.

Dr. Bob Cornwall is pastor of First Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) of Lompoc, CA (www.lompoc

disciples.org). His blog can be found at http://pastorbobcornwall. blogspot.com and he may be contacted at lompocdisciples@impulse.net or c/o First Christian Church, P.O. Box 1056, Lompoc, CA 93438.

Jan. 28, 2007