Monitoring Stem Cell Research 
67 
and a non-complicity argument [like the one implied by the 
policy] will only work if the answer to that question is well, I 
guess they’ll have to be enough.”'*'^ Or, put differently, if the 
policy is founded primarily in a determination to prevent gov- 
ernment funds from encouraging the destruction of human 
embryos, and only secondarily in a judgment about the value 
of embryonic stem cell research, then advances in research 
alone (or the absence of advances alone) would not be suffi- 
cient to overturn it. If it is sound before such advances, some 
argue, it would still be valid after"^ — ^though again, of course, 
whether it is right to begin with is itself a point of great con- 
tention. 
C. Inconsistent 
In responding to critiques like those just discussed, defend- 
ers of the administration’s policy generally point to the princi- 
ples that define the approach of the pohcy, as partially laid out 
in the previous chapter. But some criticism of the policy, 
directing itself precisely to the claim of consistent adherence 
to principle, has charged that the policy is morally con- 
tradictory, or at least inconsistent, in its own terms. 
One common form of the charge of inconsistency concerns 
the distinction the policy tacitly draws between public and 
private funding. 'The current policy addresses itself only to fed- 
eral funding of embryo research and is silent on the conduct of 
such research in the private sector. But the source of funding, 
this line of criticism suggests, could have no bearing on the 
question of the moral status of human embryos or the propriety 
of using them in research. If federal funding for research that 
destroys human embryos is so troublesome, then why should 
such research be allowed to proceed when privately funded? 
Acting to restrict one but not the other may be prudent, but it 
seems inconsistent.'^® Indeed, by implicitly excluding such re- 
search from federal guidelines, it may actually encourage more 
reckless practices and may simply transfer the problem of 
complicity to the private sphere, where it is even more difficult 
to monitor and moderate the uses to which human embryos 
are put. Though these critics understand that the President 
cannot simply ban embryo research by himself, they argue that 
PRE -PUBLICATION VERSION 
