YOU could be forgiven for thinking that the stem-cell debate is over in the US. President Barack Obama has made good on his campaign promise to lift his predecessor鈥檚 restrictions on federal funding for research on human embryonic stem cells (ESCs). Advocates of stem cell research are celebrating (see 鈥淪tem cell go ahead comes at the perfect moment鈥�).
New Scientist hates to spoil the party, but the stem-cell debate is not closed 鈥� it is about to enter a new and more subtle phase. If US biologists and those who fund their work are to retain popular support, they may need to keep a close eye on the nuances of public opinion.
鈥淚f biologists are to retain popular support, they鈥檒l need to keep a close eye on the nuances of public opinion鈥�
Advertisement
翱产补尘补鈥檚 is sparsely worded and leaves the details to be worked out by the . The NIH now has 120 days to come up with new guidelines on human ESC research, and is then expected to back this work 鈥渢o the extent permitted by law鈥�.
This key phrase is a veiled reference to a law known as the . Every year since 1996 it has been attached to the bills approving the NIH鈥檚 budget, and it prohibits funding research that involves the creation, destruction or injury of a human embryo. This means that the NIH can give grants to biologists to work with human ESCs created using other funding sources, but it cannot pay them to isolate new cell lines.
Not only does the NIH have to work within this constraint, but it must also weigh the issue of whether its money can be used for research on lines derived from embryos created specifically for the purpose of making stem cells, or whether to restrict funding to cell lines extracted from 鈥渟pare鈥� embryos left over from IVF clinics.
New Scientist quizzed US stem cell biologists on these points this week, in the immediate wake of 翱产补尘补鈥檚 announcement, and found divergent views. Some were content to work with ESCs isolated from spare IVF embryos, but a few wanted the NIH to fund research on ESCs taken from embryos created expressly to make stem cells, combined with action by Congress to overturn the Dickey-Wicker amendment.
We urge caution. Some nations, such as the UK, have taken a liberal approach to ESCs, even allowing government funds to be used in attempts to create stem cells by cloning. But US sensibilities are different, and it is not clear whether the widespread public backing for 翱产补尘补鈥檚 move would persist if the research involved anything other than cell lines taken from spare IVF embryos. Having won a significant expansion of this research, it will now be important to retain public goodwill.