It seemed like Wisconsin was going to stick to its progressive tradition. Although President George W. Bush had enacted a policy on stem-cell research prohibiting federal funding for the acquisition of new embryonic stem-cell lines, Wisconsin had taken it’s own steps to advance the science. Via actions such as Gov. Jim Doyle’s fiscal commitment to embryonic stem-cell research in his most recent budget, the state seemed to support the study of embryonic stem cells. Unfortunately, just as things were looking up for embryonic stem-cell research in Wisconsin, proponents of the research hit a roadblock.

Last week, the Wisconsin State Assembly approved a proposal by State Rep. Steve Kestell, R-Elkhart Lake, to amend Assembly Bill 206 — a bill designed to give tax incentives to state companies doing developmental research. If the bill is passed by the State Senate and signed by Gov. Doyle, this amendment will forbid the state from financially encouraging companies that utilize embryonic stem cells harvested after August of 2001.

The recent actions taken by Rep. Kestell and the State Assembly bring back an exhausted issue: the moral dilemma of procuring new embryonic stem-cell lines. This quandary is far different than that to which it is often compared.

Regardless of their disagreement on the issue, most people who support a woman’s right to choose can at least have empathy toward those who oppose abortion on moral grounds. Opposition to embryonic stem-cell research, however, is very difficult to understand.

The moral issue that many people take with embryonic stem-cell research, although well intentioned, is hardly justified. While embryonic stem-cell lines must come from a human embryo, it is possible to harvest them from embryos facing inevitable destruction in fertility clinics. Using common sense, it seems one could only come to the conclusion that an embryo facing certain destruction may as well be used to advance the human race.

Generally, stem-cell research employs a few different types of stem cells. Blood stem cells (found in the bone marrow of humans), embryonic stem cells (taken from human embryos that are a few days old) and umbilical cord stem cells (taken from the blood of an umbilical cord) are three different types of stem cells used for research. According to the Washington Post, it is widely agreed that embryonic stem cells hold the most potential for curing ailments such as juvenile diabetes, Parkinson’s disease and spinal cord injuries. Given the aforementioned possible sources for embryonic stem-cell lines, why is there controversy over a science that seems so promising?

Even if the Bush administration stands by idly while Europe and the rest of the world take action to advance and encourage the promise of embryonic stem-cell research, Wisconsin has the opportunity to embrace progress on its own. Not only is state promotion of embryonic stem-cell research an opportunity to greatly advance the science and its potential, it is good economic policy. With state financial incentives for embryonic stem-cell research, such as the tax credit that was originally proposed in Wisconsin State Assembly Bill 206, Wisconsin could attract a substantial portion of the booming business that is developmental research involving embryonic stem cells. No matter how you frame the issue, it is difficult to understand the opposition to state promotion of embryonic stem-cell research.

Wisconsin has a rich tradition in progress. Home to revolutionary politicos such as “Fighting Bob” LaFollette, the state has always cherished its motto: “Forward.” With this in mind, it would seem fitting that Wisconsin embrace embryonic stem-cell research. Promoting this field of research would not only bolster the state economy; it would re-establish the state as a place where scientific progress trumps the moral whims of the few.

Rob Rossmeissl ([email protected]) is a sophomore majoring in political science.