Last week, University of Wisconsin professor James Thomson and Japanese researcher Shinya Yamanaka discovered a method of isolating stem cells without the use, or destruction, of human embryos. This breakthrough is of epic proportions and deserves the praise it has received. With the potential to erase the moral dilemma of destroying an embryo for scientific progress, the possibilities of the recent innovation seem endless for human stem cell research, assuming the procedure is improved and enhanced beyond its current nascent state.

Yet for all its scientific novelty and marvel — and for all of the groundbreaking cures and discoveries that could result from the newly developed procedure — the new stem cell breakthrough carries with it a very serious, very consequential question of the extent to which moral and scientific boundaries should interact with one another. This is a question that if ignored, or infelicitously addressed, could have dire consequences for the future of national policy and scientific progress as a whole.

In 2001, only three years after the first human stem cell was isolated, President Bush declared that no further federal funding would be allocated for embryonic stem cell research beyond the stem cells that could be isolated from existing leftover embryos at fertility clinics. According to the president, the destruction of an embryo for scientific purposes was outside of what he, and many social conservatives around the country, deemed proper ethical boundaries.

Since then, the president, other social conservatives and many in the anti-abortion lobby have demanded that scientists come up with an alternative method to isolate stem cells that does not involve destroying an embryo.

Last week, scientists did exactly that, but potentially at an immense cost to the future of scientific headway.

By discovering a method for scientific progress within a certain set of moral guidelines, we have encountered the dangerous possibility of having a particular moral boundary dictate what is and what is not acceptable for future scientific research.

With the example of stem cells in its arsenal, the religious right (in this case), or any other group or individual that may claim moral superiority, has a distinct precedent to demand that scientific discovery be realized in a singular ethical vein — a vein that may be impervious to a greater debate society has engaged.

After the stem cell discovery was published last week, the White House released a statement saying, "By avoiding techniques that destroy life, while vigorously supporting alternative approaches, President Bush is encouraging scientific advancement within ethical boundaries."

His ethical boundaries.

Unfortunately, this is an illustration of the possibility for a dangerous "just wait and see" mentality toward scientific discovery within a given moral umbrella, and it could result in stagnation or cessation of future scientific endeavors under the credence of a fulfilled demand for discovery within a definitive moral creed.

Yet, no one — no matter his or her political or societal power — holds a monopoly on morality, and this simple and self-evident truth must remain a stated reality in order to curb future declarations of ethical high ground in similar debates.

Contrarily, it is quite evident that our society — our social conduct and rule of law — is guided by a certain moral standard. The question is then, to what extent should it interact with scientific research?

If we are to approach the question with orthodox utilitarianism, we may indeed lend credence to the notion of scientific research void of moral inhibition. We are told, over and over again, that as the most reliable source of knowledge about the world we live in, science is an infinitely irreproachable cause. Yet at the same time, as living beings, we put restrictions on how widely the scientific net can be cast — restrictions that humans of many different moral backgrounds agree upon.

Take the case of a feral child, a rare discovery that invariably captures the interest of psychologists and sociologists and holds the potential for significant scientific research and progress. In these cases, many scientists would love to continue to study a human being living his or her entire life in pure isolation, or manufacture a similar situation, yet this scientific endeavor has always been suspended on moral grounds. And rightfully so.

Therefore, we are presented, as illustrated in the stem cell debate, with a dilemma of conflicting boundaries. But unlike the stem cell debate, it is hard to imagine we will always be presented with a scientific alternative. And therefore, we must never be lured into any kind of actionable supremacy, whether moral or scientific.

Some may say that our entire faith belongs in science, that the universe is composed of a finite set of explanations, one grand and unified scheme that ultimately has a full explanation within.

On the other hand, some may also say that after all, science is the work of explaining what is and not why it is, that science is the eternal process of discovering its own bylaws, yet never addressing a provenance to accompany them.

As an intrinsic characteristic, we are beings of faith — whether manifested in our empirical studies, our religious expression or our day-to-day decisions. Likewise, we are beings of inquisition and ingenuity, capable of improving our lives within our many different capacities.

Therefore — as we must come to discover in the aftermath of the stem cell breakthrough — our energy and our faith belong neither solely in the name of a moral principle nor solely in a scientific end.

Andy Granias ([email protected]) is a junior majoring in political science and legal studies.