When does life begin? While the answer to this controversial question may forever be a divided one, it is safe to assume that a unified response can be made when one asks, “when does life end?” Most people will answer: when a person’s heart and breathing stops – when a body stops working properly. For most people, this is due to sicknesses like cancer, diabetes, Parkinson’s or Alzheimer’s disease, and so on.

Sadly, for the past eight years, research to uncover better treatments and even possible cures for some of these illnesses has been put into slow motion.

Under the presidency of George W. Bush, federal money for research on human embryonic stems cells was limited to those stem cell lines that were created before Aug. 9, 2001. No federal dollars could be used on research with cell lines from embryos destroyed from that point forward.

On Monday, March 9, however, President Barack Obama lifted that restriction in the hopes of restoring “scientific integrity.”

“[S]cientists believe these tiny cells may have the potential to help us understand and possibly cure some of our most devastating diseases and conditions,” Obama said at the signing. He referenced the late Superman actor Christopher Reeve, who became an advocate of stem cell research after being paralyzed in a horse-riding accident.

Embryonic stem cells have the ability to morph into any cell type in the body. Because of this capability, scientists hope to harness them so they can create replacement tissues to treat a variety of diseases like the ones listed above.

The use of stem cells for this kind of research is controversial because embryos must be destroyed to obtain the cells. Generally, the cells are obtained from fertility-clinic scraps that would be otherwise disposed of. Once a group of stem cells is collected, it can be kept alive and circulated in lab dishes for years.

Since Obama signed the executive act, scientists who have had to meticulously separate their federally funded research and their privately funded stem cell work do not have that expensive hurdle anymore.

“Medical miracles do not happen simply by accident. They result from painstaking and costly research,” Obama said. He explained that his decision rejects the “false choice” between science and morality.

Now, scientists can apply for research grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which began writing guidelines for what embryonic stem cell lines would qualify under prior to Obama’s decision. Among other issues, the guidelines require that cells be acquired with proper informed consent from women or couples who donate(d) the original embryo.

While opinion polls suggest the most Americans support stem cell research, many – including the Vatican and House Minority Leader John Boehner (an Ohio Republican) – believe that the research is immoral because human embryos are destroyed in the course of obtaining stem cells. The National Right to Life Committee described the research as a “slippery slope.”

One facet of this “slippery slope” that social conservatives are referring to is the fear that stem cell research can lead to human cloning. In response to this concern, Obama said his administration would develop “strict guidelines” to avoid such experimentation.

“We cannot ever tolerate misuse or abuse. And we will ensure that our government never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction,” Obama said. “It is dangerous, profoundly wrong, and has no place in our society, or any society.”

Alarm about human cloning is comparable to those who believe that using embryonic stem cells is immoral; they both pose this question: “When does life begin?”

Even though this is a legitimate inquiry, politics should not be the absolute factor in answering it especially when many political opinions are solely based on religious ethics. This kind of limited thinking blinds people from the main benefit of stem cell research: the potential to save lives.

America’s declaration of separating church and state clearly needs to be implemented when considering this research. As long as it is monitored with an unbiased and cautious eye, one that Obama intends to watch with, scientific morality should be the most important factor when considering life.

Originally published Sunday, March 22, 2009