January 11, 2007
(House)
STATEMENT
OF ADMINISTRATION
POLICY
H.R. 3 – Stem
Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007
(Rep. DeGette (D)
CO and 210 cosponsors)
The Administration
strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 3, which would use
Federal taxpayer dollars to support and encourage the
destruction of human life for research. The bill would compel
all American taxpayers to pay for research that relies on the
intentional destruction of human embryos for the derivation of
stem cells, overturning the President’s policy that funds
research without promoting such ongoing destruction. If H.R. 3
were presented to the President, he would veto the bill.
The President strongly supports medical research and has worked
with Congress to increase resources for the National Institutes
of Health. This Administration is the first to provide Federal
funds for human embryonic stem cell research and has done so
without encouraging the destruction of human embryos. The
President’s policy permits the funding of research using
embryonic cell lines created prior to August 9, 2001, the date
his policy was announced, along with stem cell research using
other kinds of cell lines. Scientists can therefore explore the
potential applications of such cells, but the Federal government
does not offer incentives or encouragement for the destruction
of human life.
Over the past six years, more than $130 million in taxpayer
dollars has been devoted to human embryonic stem cell research
consistent with the President’s policy. Overall, nearly $3
billion has gone to innovative research on all forms of stem
cells, contributing to dozens of proven medical treatments.
However, this bill would provide Federal funding for the first
time for a line of research that involves the intentional
destruction of living human embryos for the derivation of their
cells. Destroying nascent human life for research raises
serious ethical problems, and millions of Americans consider the
practice immoral.
The Administration believes that government has a duty to use
the people’s money responsibly, both supporting important public
purposes and respecting moral boundaries. H.R. 3 seeks to
replace the Administration’s policy with one that uses Federal
dollars to offer a prospective incentive for the destruction of
human embryos. Embryonic stem cell research is at an early
stage of basic science and has never yielded a therapeutic
application in humans. Alternative types of human stem cells –
drawn from adults, children, umbilical-cord blood, and other
non-embryonic sources, without doing harm to the donors – have
already achieved therapeutic results in thousands of patients
with many different diseases.
Researchers are now developing promising new techniques to
produce stem cells similar in nature to those derived from human
embryos, but not requiring the use of embryos. A series of
encouraging research reports, the latest of which was released
this week, offers hope that stem cells drawn from non-embryonic
sources may possess characteristics like those of embryonic stem
cells. The Administration believes that the availability of
alternative sources of stem cells further counters the case for
compelling the American taxpayer to encourage the ongoing
destruction of human embryos for research.
Moreover, private sector support and public funding by several
States for this line of research, which will add up to several
billion dollars in the coming few years, argues against the
notion of any urgent shortfall of research funding. Whatever
one’s view of the ethical issues or the state of the research,
the future of this field does not require a policy of Federal
subsidies that is offensive to the moral principles of millions
of Americans.
H.R. 3 advances the proposition that the Nation must choose
between science and ethics. The Administration believes it is
possible to advance scientific research without violating
ethical principles – by enacting appropriate policy safeguards
and pursuing thoughtful scientific techniques. H.R. 3 is
seriously flawed legislation that would undo essential ethical
protections, and slow the development of new techniques that
avoid bio-ethical concerns.
To view or download PDF version, click
here.