Stem cell research is by far one of the most controversial issues that our society currently faces. As with most progressive movements, there is always a question of extreme possibilities. If marijuana is made legal, will it be cocaine next?

The same slippery-slope theory applies to stem cell research, and while the debate has already seen some “productive” turnaround, it is still in its infant stages. Cloning is where the moral line should be drawn in this debate. As far as curing serious diseases and repairing the human body, however, I feel that morality should take a back seat while we let our “mad” scientists do their job.

By saying we need to let our scientists do their job, I am suggesting that we need to let them participate in stem cell research in order to assist those in need (see Proposition 71). Of course it is immoral to some of the most liberal individuals for our society to be cloning one another. This is the precise line of the debate where distinctions can be drawn. If we allow stem cell research, will there be a slew of Frankensteins walking the streets?

In Nathanial Hawthorn’s short story, “The Birth Mark,” a scientist with a questionable track record performs a risky experiment to remove a birthmark from his beloved wife’s face. In the end, he kills his wife while ridding her of the birthmark at the same time. His excitement for his success seems to overrule his regret for killing his wife. Hawthorne in essence is telling the world not to romanticize science otherwise you will lose all sense of reality. Thus, it is understandable to conduct stem cell research with intentions of curing disease and hardships, but unnecessary to risk the life of another human being in an effort to extend science beyond reasonability.

With this said, my stance on the debate isn’t far from President Bush’s. In 2001, he granted $250 million for stem cell research. Bush made it clear in a 2001 speech how important the research is and where a line must be drawn. Bush said that we “should allow federal funds to be used for research on these existing stem cell lines, where the life and death decision have already been made. He also said, “The initial stem cell researcher was at first reluctant to begin his research, fearing it might be used for human cloning. – I strongly oppose human cloning.”

There are other arguments against stem cell research that go beyond human cloning, but to me it is the defining moral line. A clear positive to stem cell research is genetic engineering. This process is already being used, as a result of our scientists conceiving a way to decode DNA as well as stem cell research, to help reduce the risks of passing on genetic disorders or diseases to babies. Of course this carries with it the deep dark shadow of the eugenics movement, but it is still far from human cloning.

I often wonder if Darwin thought of any issues of morality in natural selection. As with natural law, we all are programmed with standards of living and don’t know why. Aside from any formal systems of religion, many of us can’t explain how or why we have objections to controversial issues such as stem cell research. By using a simple rational thought process, however, it is clear that when it comes to advancing our overall health, morality should be kept within the borders of reasonability.

Blake Ellington can be reached at [email protected]