What is the Dickey Amendment and why should you care? Part 2

The Dickey Amendment, which prohibits federal tax dollars to be used to fund research that creates or destroys human embryos has again been passed by Congress and signed into law by President Obama.  This is good news.

But, I believe this was a political move and not an ethical one.  This year, President Obama lifted the funding restriction for embryonic stem cell research put into place by President Bush.  In Obama's speech, he stated he was against human reproductive cloning, leaving the door open for his support of therapeutic cloning which would create and destroy human  embryos for research purposes.  The federal funding of therapeutic cloning is direct conflict with the Dickey Amendment.  So I believe that the Dickey Amendment is already in political gun sites, possibly for 2010.

This means that we cannot let up.  We need to continually remind our representatives in government that we want them to uphold the Dickey Amendment.  The pressure to get rid of Dickey is already formidable.  The New York Times has called for the end of the Dickey-Wicker Amendment:

Other important embryonic research is still being hobbled by the so-called Dickey-Wicker amendment. The amendment, which is regularly attached to appropriations bills for the Department of Health and Human Services, prohibits the use of federal funds to support scientific work that involves the destruction of human embryos (as happens when stem cells are extracted) or the creation of embryos for research purposes.

Until that changes, scientists who want to create embryos — and extract stem cells — matched to patients with specific diseases will have to rely on private or state support. Such research is one promising way to learn how the diseases develop and devise the best treatments. Congress should follow Mr. Obama’s lead and lift this prohibition so such important work can benefit from an infusion of federal dollars.

And so have the editors of Nature:

In force since 1996, the Dickey–Wicker amendment badly needs updating to fit the current research reality, if not outright repeal. But because it affects fewer researchers than did the funding restrictions on stem-cell research, scientists who spent hours in public outreach trying to overturn the stem-cell ban may well want to return to their labs, leaving this lower-profile law's implications unquestioned.

Such attitudes are understandable, but wrong. Both the Dickey–Wicker amendment and the new guidelines on human embryonic stem-cell research being drawn up by the National Institutes of Health merit an intense national conversation. In particular, that dialogue should thoroughly explore attitudes towards studying different types of embryos — not just those left over from fertility procedures, but also those that might be specially created for research.

So have members of Congress:

But with Mr. Obama revisiting the Bush policy, Representative Diana DeGette, Democrat of Colorado and a leading advocate for embryonic stem cell research, said Sunday in an interview that overturning the embryo experiment ban might not be as far-fetched as some critics imagine.

Ms. DeGette said the first move for lawmakers would be to turn the steps Mr. Obama takes by executive order on Monday into law. But she said she was also talking to her colleagues about overturning the broader Dickey-Wicker restriction.

“Dickey-Wicker is 13 years old now, and I think we need to review these policies,” Ms. DeGette said. “I’ve already talked to several pro-life Democrats about Dickey-Wicker, and they seemed open to the concept of reversing the policy if we could show that it was necessary to foster this research.”

If the Dickey-Wicker Amendment is overturned, then our tax dollars could go to funding the creation and destruction of human embryos for research. This would include research currently being conducted that creates cow-human or rabbit-human embryos in the hopes of extracting embryonic stem cells.  I will say it again: The Dickey-Wicker Amendment is the last impediment to a government funded Brave New World where human life is created, manipulated and destroyed in the name of science.