Monitoring Stem Cell Research 
73 
[W]hile we’re all hopeful about the potential of this re- 
search, no one can be certain that the science will live up 
to the hope it has generated. . . . Embryonic stem ceU re- 
search offers both great promise and great peril. So I 
have decided we must proceed with great care.”^ 
Viewing the administration’s policy as based on an inter- 
mediate or uncertain view of the moral standing of human em- 
bryos also makes plausible, in the view of these observers, the 
fact that the President has neither called for a ban on privately 
funded embryo research, nor called upon scientists to desist 
horn research on stem cell lines created after August 9, 2001. 
They contend that it also makes sense of the requirements, 
discussed above, that stem cell lines created before that date 
must, in order to qualify for federal funding, be derived from 
excess embryos created for reproduction, with donor consent, 
and without financial inducements. 
Those who interpret the policy as reflecting an intermedi- 
ate or uncertain view of the moral status of human embryos 
argue further that, if embryonic stem cell research vindicates 
its promise, there would be no categorical reason to prevent a 
reconsideration of federal funding in the light of medical ad- 
vances. A further implication is that people may reasonably 
draw different conclusions about whether this principle justi- 
fies federal funding of stem cell lines derived after August 9, 
2001 provided they are derived from embryos left over from IVF 
procedures, donated with consent, and v^ithout financial in- 
ducement.®’ Although the President has declared that he re- 
gards destructive embryo research as unethical without addi- 
tional qualifications,®® and although HHS Secretary Tommy 
Thompson has said that scientific advances would not cause 
the President to reconsider his policy,®® those who interpret the 
President’s policy as reflecting an intermediate or uncertain 
view of the embryo argue that the moral logic of this principle 
admits the possibility that significant medical breakthroughs 
could justify a reconsideration. 
PRE -PUBLICATION VERSION 
