Dispute over Stem Cells: A Timeline

For more than 40 years government officials have grappled with how to regulate and fund the controversial research 
 

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Despite its promise, stem cell research in the U.S. has been stymied, time and again, by bioethical landmines. The explosive debate revolves around the fact that, until recently, the only way to get pluripotent stem cells was to extract them from human embryos left over from in-vitro fertilization—a process that destroyed the five-day-old embryo. The ongoing debate about when life begins has led many to oppose stem cell research on the grounds that it is immoral to destroy something that could eventually grow into a person. On the other hand, promoters argue that the potential to help millions of people with stem cell therapies outweighs the sanctity of cells that are not viable outside the womb and that often go unused. Arguments on both sides are based on personal beliefs that may never be reconciled, so the debate hinges on whether the federal government should fund research that many citizens find morally objectionable. The following box chronicles stem cell research regulation in the U.S. 

1970s

The Supreme Court legalizes abortion in 1973. The ensuing debate on the ethics of experimenting on fetal tissue prompts Congress to issue a moratorium on federal funding for research on human embryos the following year.

1990s

In 1995 President Clinton lifts the ban on funding for study of stem cells left over from in-vitro fertilization, but leaves other restrictions in place. In response, Congress passes the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, prohibiting funding for all research “in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death,” regardless of the source of the embryo.

2000s  

President George W. Bush announces that federal funding will be made available for research on the approximately 60 existing embryonic stem cell lines, but not new ones. Congress twice votes to loosen the restrictions on funding for research using embryonic stem cells left over from in-vitro fertilization but President Bush vetoes the legislation both times.

In 2009, early in his first term, President Barack Obama removes the ban on federal funding for new stem cell lines but signs an omnibus bill preserving the Dickey-Wicker Amendment. The move retains restrictions against federal funding for the direct creation of new stem cell lines, but opens up funding for research on newly created lines developed with private or state money. 

2010s

In 2012 stem cell biologist Shinya Yamanaka wins the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for discovering how to reprogram adult skin cells into pluripotent stem cells. Going forward, policy makers will have to determine whether Yamanaka’s induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS) will face the same regulations as human embryonic stem cells or if new legislation is needed.
 

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe