Pushing the ethical limits of embryonic stem cell research

NIH released it's newly composed (draft) guidelines on the 17th governing the funding of embryonic stem cell research in light of President Obama's executive order a month ago. The gist of the changes boils down to NIH OK'ing the funding of stem cell lines derived from embryos unused from IVF, with no prior intent on research. Lines created from embryos conceived for the explicit purpose of future research are off-limits (funding of the actual derivation of embryos is unavailable by order of Congress).

This change frees up significantly the amount of leeway researchers have in investigating potentially life-saving technologies, which will have invaluable benefits in the long run. More than 760 current lines could be funded under the new guidelines, which will undoubtedly speed progress. Opponents of stem cell research are unsuprisingly decrying the new developments, but interesting to note is the discontent some proponents for research are making known.

Proponents acknowledge that these changes are certainly a step in the right direction, but some do not think it is enough. They want embryo lines created from "research" embryos, not only IVF embryos, to be OK'd as well. They claim that specific cell lines will not be able to be generated with the current limitations.

I personally think NIH's changes are enough, at least for now. It is already an extraordinary compromise for both sides to limit research to discarded cells that would otherwise be destroyed, versus creating cells for the explicit sake of destroying them for research. Stem cell research is still a new science, and ethical constraints are sure to slacken in the coming years, so it will be a slow process. The argument that specific cell lines won't be able to come to fruition is a little questionable to me, because I don't really think the science is at a point where embryos can be picked for specific "stem cell" purposes. To work with what is already available (and there is PLENTY available) is already fine by my book.

http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090417/full/news.2009.373.html

http://scienceblogs.com/scientificactivist/2009/04/nih_stem_cell_guidelines.php?utm_source=nytwidget