Critics object to this technology because they see therapeutic cloning bringing science dangerously close to reproductive cloning. Abortion opponents equate the destruction of any embryos, cloned or not, with abortion.
In 2001 President Bush tried to strike a compromise on the issue with his nationally televised decision to permit federal support only for embryonic stem cell research, using a limited number of cell lines that existed at that time. While his aides said there were dozens of such cell lines available, close inspection since has shown there are barely a dozen, far fewer than is necessary for robust research. This limit on federal research money is particularly frustrating to scientists because the technology is still at an early stage in which private companies are reluctant to invest and government money is crucial.
The other cloud over therapeutic cloning is legislation passed by the House of Representatives that bans both it and reproductive cloning. So far the Senate has sensibly rejected such a bill, with many senators favoring a measure that would ban reproductive cloning but permit the therapeutic version.
In this climate, it is reassuring to have an institution with the prestige of The New England Journal of Medicine take such a clear stance. ''I believe,'' wrote the editor, Dr. Jeffrey Drazen, in last week's issue, ''that such research must continue in the United States if we are to provide the best possible care for our patients.'' He expects many of the cutting-edge studies the journal publishes on stem cells will be from foreign countries where there is stronger public support for the work.
Both the medical community and the public at large must be kept informed of progress being made and what the stakes are of insufficient investment in this research.
