Monitoring Stem Cell Research 
57 
upon human safety, freedom, and dignity/ The decades-old 
and nearly universal adherence of researchers to rules protect- 
ing human subjects, these commentators suggest, demon- 
strates that the needs of research are not always treated as 
paramount and that the scientific community itself joins the 
general public in recognizing instances in which research — 
however important — must be limited for ethical reasons.® Re- 
searchers do not weigh the interests of human subjects 
against the importance of their work; rather they respect a 
principled boundary — ^that human subjects are not to be 
harmed or put at risk without their informed consent — ^the im- 
portance of which trumps even the most promising experi- 
ment. For some defenders of human embryos, the prospect of 
embryo research raises precisely these concerns; accordingly, 
they argue that this issue too should be decided on the basis 
of a moral rule, not by a shiftable tally on a balance sheet of 
benefits.® 
But this assertion about the proper form of moral argument 
depends on the truth of the claim that human embryos are in- 
deed human subjects of research. Therefore, one’s position in 
the debate about the basic character of the moral issue may 
depend, in many cases, on one’s understanding of the moral 
standing of human embryos. As we shall see, the question of 
the moral standing of embryos is by no means the only rele- 
vant question. But in the actual public debate, as it has devel- 
oped, this question seems to have been most central and 
prominent and probably most responsible for shaping the dif- 
ferent basic approaches pursued. It is this question that very 
often informs the differing views regarding which aims or 
goods are more weighty or which should not be compromised 
at all. 
We turn next to arguments regarding that very issue: Which 
moral aims or which concerns should be given priority in shap- 
ing government policy toward human embryonic stem cell re- 
search? 
PRE -PUBLICATION VERSION 
