Is using embryonic cells ethical?

Could we pause for a moment in our race past the new scientific landmarks?

This month, the neon news flashing along the medical fast track announced that scientists were finally able to isolate and cultivate embryonic stem cells in the lab. Eventually, we are told, this breakthrough could lead to an endless supply of cells, tissue and organs, not to mention cures for problems from heart disease to Parkinson's.These promises were enough to make the layperson's neck hurt from craning as they sped along. But there are as many ethical cans tied to this scientific breakthrough as rattle behind a bridal getaway car.

The human embryonic stem cells come, of course, from embryos. The research done by biologist James Thomson used the spare embryos from in-vitro fertilization clinics. These were donated by couples who have no further use of them. The embryos were not yet at the stage when they could be implanted.

For those who forgot Biology 1 after taking Politics 101, only a third of all embryos become babies naturally. Only a fourth of those used in fertility treatments develop to birth. The embryonic stem cells isolated from these embryos would never in themselves become babies.

But anything having to do with the material of human life raises questions that have been locked in over the long, torturous abortion debate. Is a fertilized egg of equal moral status to a baby? Is it nothing but undifferentiated tissue? What protection does it deserve? In what ways, if any, is it ethical to use it?

We have all sorts of arguments in this country about the leftovers of in-vitro fertilization. We've had custody disputes about frozen eggs. We've had couples sue when their extras where given to others without their knowledge.

It's clear that human cells have enough moral status that we wouldn't allow them to be used for research into, say, lipsticks. But the question that comes from just the initial phase of stem cell research is whether to use these embryos to cure diseases.

Ronald Green, director of the Ethics Institute at Dartmouth, says the stem cell research is the 21st-century medicine that may enable us to make the human tissue needed to help those with spinal cord injuries, for example, or going through chemotherapy. "I cannot see a logic that would thaw and destroy those embryos rather than using them," he says. He makes a similar case for the use of aborted fetuses in a second major study into stem cells.

The abortion argument can easily distort the complexity of the scientific research. The stunning pos-si-bilities of stem cell research don't fit neatly into the "pro-life" or even "pro-choice" lingo.

So far the researchers have been scientifically bold and ethically cautious. But there is room for squeamishness down the road.

In 1995, Congress banned federal funds for research that might harm human embryos. So today we have private companies producing cells for profit.

We need both the public funding for this cutting-edge medicine and the oversight that comes with it.

The Boston Globe Newspaper Co.