Baker Institute Blog


Why Are We Afraid to Regulate Embryonic Research?


Stem Cell

As the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate review the federal budget, one step should be skipped — adding the Dickey-Wicker amendment to the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) appropriation bill. This amendment, which prohibits the creation or destruction of embryos for research purposes, has been inserted into the DHHS appropriations bill for the last 12 years – effectively circumventing the traditional bill-passing process and inserting policy into finances.

Why is this bad? First it evades customary legislative process by linking policy to the funding and not passing a bill outright. No debate or discussion on the amendment happens. I doubt that with the current Democrat majority in both Houses it would indeed pass. Yet, it’s still allowed to ride on the appropriation bill for the National Institutes of Health (NIH). And the president signs the bill because it is wrapped up with billions of dollars of federal funding.

Second, it limits research on in vitro fertilization and embryonic stem cell line creation to private industry. Wouldn’t we be better served as a public supporting this research through the NIH where peer-review exists and all grant information is released to the general public? The NIH is recognized worldwide as the leader and model for biomedical research. It requires all research to be reviewed through internal review boards and projects that it funds must be proven to be ethically sound and appropriate. Wouldn’t we want this for embryonic research? Earlier this year, after President Obama issued an executive order expanding NIH support for the exploration of human stem cell research, the NIH created a board which will review all of the human embryonic stem cell lines to determine if they were created ethically and can be used for federally funded research. Wouldn’t it be easier to regulate the process creating these lines instead of reviewing them afterwards?

The Dickey-Wicker Amendment was first attached during 1996, when the Republicans retained a majority in Congress. Democrats control Congress now, but the amendment still remains. Lawmakers from both parties allow this ban to continue to be placed on the NIH appropriations bill each year. Even our current president, who claims to support stem cell research, isn’t willing to take on this political fight.

Why are we afraid to regulate embryonic research?


Science and Technology

4 Responses

  1. ron327 says:

    “…the NIH created a board which will review all of the human embryonic stem cell lines to determine if they were created ethically…”


    Maybe this kind of government inspired, politically correct silliness is why it should be left to private enterprise. If the cells are there, what does it matter whether ten or twenty or thirty years ago the line was created by what the bureaucratic twits, through whatever convoluted logic they use, considers them ethical.

    It stem cell research is so productive, let private enterprise do it and spare the taxpayers the cost.

  2. Pat says:

    It’s not fear of research it’s the morality of using embroys in reseach a great many people consider life beginning at conception and to create life to destroy it is anti-ethical to christians. I relise that most people give God lip service but the killing of embryos is kinda like the priest character in the movie Ice Pirates who was disguised as a priest because the evil goverment didn’t castrate priests on the off chance that God exists.

  3. Kirstin Matthews says:

    What I would like to challenge is the idea that it is better to do research on embryos unregulated in private industry and with private funding versus doing the research under ethical guidelines with full transparency within the government.

  4. Mark Frankel says:

    The author raises some important and BIG issues. I want to comment on a smaller matter, but by no means trivial.

    Until last year, the Dickey-Wicker amendments had always been part of the HHS appropriations bill. What this means is that the restriction only applied to HHS-funded research. It did not apply to the rest of the government, including those entities that fund life science/medical research (e.g.,DoD,VA, NSF). Last year (and so far this year, although the appropriations bill has not yet been adopted), the amendment is part of an Omnibus appropriations bill including all but a couple of departments. This means that the scope of the amendment’s force has been expanded, without any significant debate. Whether one approves or disapproves of the amendment, the lack of open debate on such a fundamental issue that could affects millions of our citizens is a political embarrassment, at best.