68 
Ethical and Policy Developments 
he could attempt to convince the Congress to do so, and he 
could have made such an attempt as an element of his funding 
policy decision. But he did not — ^thus bringing into question 
(for these critics) not only his commitment to the principle ar- 
ticulated by the policy, but also his own view of the moral 
standing of human embryos, which the policy itself does not 
make simply apparent.^® Moreover, critics argue, some promi- 
nent defenders of the policy, by making the fact of ongoing 
private research an element of their defense, might be said to 
contribute to these doubts about its grounding in consistent 
principle.^^ 
There may be some political or structural reasons for draw- 
ing a distinction in federal policy between what is funded and 
what is permitted. Questions of federalism and other legal re- 
alities no doubt enter the picture, and indeed those who op- 
pose the destruction of human embryos are, in many cases, 
actively seeking prohibitions on all embryo research in indi- 
vidual states.* But, critics point out, they generally say little on 
the larger question of permissibility at the federal level. By 
making funding the center of concern, these critics argue, the 
policy puts into question the importance of preventing embryo 
destruction more generally, casting some uncertainty over the 
relation of that policy to one or another position regarding the 
moral standing of early human embryos. 
A related criticism contends that the distinction drawn be- 
tween research practices in which human embryos are de- 
stroyed and research practices that use the products of previ- 
ous embryo destruction is itself inconsistent- — a distinction 
without a difference, drawn for political cover. "Pretending 
that the scientists who do stem cell research are in no way 
complicit in the destruction of embryos is just wrong, a smoke 
and mirrors game,” writes one critic. "It would be much better 
to take the issue on directly by making the argument that de- 
stroying embryos in this way is morally justified — ^is, in effect, 
a just sacrifice to make."®^ Similar objections have also been 
raised by critics on the other side of the embryo question, who 
believe that embryo destruction is morally unjustified and that 
* Lori Andrews detailed both these ongoing efforts and existing legislation in 
the states in her presentation at the Council’s July 2003 meeting and in the 
accompanying paper. (See Appendix E.) 
PRE -PUBLICATION VERSION 
