STEM-CELL ISSUE DESERVES MATURE DEBATE

President Bush's decision regarding government funding and stem-cell research has met both praise and criticism. Yet Speak Out calls, TV comments and casual discussions reveal that not all those grading the president's decision understand exactly what his announced policy is. It is, indeed, a complex issue, and many specifics are yet to be known. But let's review some of the common misunderstandings.

The first myth is that the president endorsed government funding of stem-cell research that would destroy an embryo. On this issue the president was clear. No government funding would go toward embryonic stem-cell research with the exception of the 60 or so lines of cells where the embryo was already destroyed. In other words, no embryos would be destroyed now or in the future because of his policy.

The president did not outlaw embryonic stem-cell research across the board, which does allow private companies to continue the practice. But he clearly stated that American taxpayers would not have their money used to destroy embryos in this manner, nor would he ever support such a policy.

Important legal issues

Whether or not the nation should criminalize the private destruction of embryos is a question that now moves to Congress. Warning: It is a complex issue. Millions of Americans have benefited from in vitro fertilization. If the destruction of embryos were to be outlawed, the practice of in vitro fertilization could be outlawed as well, and many couples who could not otherwise have children would be forced to other options. Would this be good or bad?

Another misunderstanding is the charge that President Bush does not support the potential of stem-cell research since he did not endorse government funding of embryonic stem-cell research. In fact, the president was clear that he supported and would increase funding for research on stem cells derived from non-controversial sources such as adult fat, bone marrow and umbilical cords. While initial experiments indicate that adult stem cells are not as genetically flexible as embryonic stem cells, their promise is undeniable while not being accompanied with the same moral dilemmas as embryonic stem cells. Meanwhile, research on stem cells derived from umbilical cords is still new; and embryonic stem cell research will continue on those cell lines already in existence.

There are serious questions that remain about Bush's policy.

From a pro-life perspective, a natural question is whether or not Bush's policy will create an incentive for private firms to harvest the stem cells from embryos, thereby destroying them, to turn over to government-funded labs who are barred from destroying the embryos themselves. Clarification after Bush's speech indicates that such a loophole does not exist. Government-funded labs may work only with the 60 existing stem-cell lines derived from embryos or they may work with stem cells derived from adult tissue or umbilical cords. Government-funded labs will not be allowed to work with stem cells derived from embryos destroyed now or in the future.

Plenty of questions

Questions from the uninhibited-research perspective include what happens if research on the already existing embryonic stem-cell lines proves extremely successful in combating debilitating illness, disease or injury, but the existing cell lines themselves begin showing instability or lack of genetic diversity for proper testing? On a practical level, how will these 60 lines -- if there are 60 lines -- be shared among researchers?

Undoubtedly, more questions will arise. And the American people should never rest in asking them, evaluating the responses and expressing our own opinions to government representatives and the larger community.

In years past with other contentious cultural issues, government too often worked by fiat, either from the executive branch or from the court system. Consequently, a full, open and healthy debate never took place, and in some cases our country still simmers from it.

President Bush deserves credit in his speech Thursday for not only announcing his policy, but for walking the country through the pros and cons of the entire, complicated issue. In that sense, he performed the role of a teacher, rejecting political spin (and attack) in favor of candid dialogue. Such leadership helps provide a calm framework for dealing with a potentially explosive issue.

Is the country -- and its other political leaders -- mature enough to respond in kind?

Jon K. Rust is co-president of Rust Communications.