In the modern world, most ethnic distinctions are faint where, and if, they exist at all. The more humans advance, the more they must stop to consider exactly what they are capable of doing. It didn't use to be so hard. But modern medicine has evolved to such an advanced degree that our power tests the boundaries of morality. The membranes separating the moral from the immoral have become porous and unclear. President George W. Bush and Congress presently face one of those blurry membranes-should the government fund embryo research that may one day result in cures for today's most devastating illnesses?

This week, Bush is busy rallying support in his effort to ban the cloning of human embryos. His actions are in response to the debate raging in the Senate over the Brownback Bill, which would put a stop to human cloning. As quoted in The New York Times, Bush said, "We can pursue medical research with a clear sense of moral purpose, or we can travel without an ethical compass into a world we could live to regret. How we answer the question of human cloning will place us on one path or the other."

Bush apparently believes that it is immoral to create life if one knows that it will only be destroyed. Of course, Bush's position is not universally held and the debate over embryo research lacks a clear resolution. It is a complex issue that must be evaluated carefully and without regard to special interests. Bush has ignored the supporters of embryo research who argue that it is immoral to choose not to save human life when it is possible. Instead of carefully pondering the morality of embryo research, it seems as though Bush has decided to cater to the ethos of his right-wing supporters.

Stem cell research and embryo cloning could give medical researchers the tools they need to cure diseases like Alzheimer's or cancer. President Bush's policies are far too simplistic. For him, embryo research is an open-and-shut case. The President has failed to see the value of embryo research even though no lives would be sacrificed and hundreds of thousands could potentially be saved. He ignores the intricacies of the issue, and, in particular, the fact that the embryos from which fetal tissue are extracted would only go to waste if not used for research. But the President is not alone in his resolute policies.

Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS), the sponsor of the Senate bill to ban embryo cloning, has seemingly glossed over the intricacies behind the debate. At an anti-cloning rally on Capitol Hill last week he declared that "Cloning is wrong, period. Creating human life to destroy it is wrong." Yet, embryo research cannot be characterized as the whimsical creation and destruction of human life. Nor can it necessarily be called the creation and destruction of human life at all, as some object to classifying embryos as human lives altogether. While embryo research will destroy the potential for embryos to grow into full-fledged humans, it very well may save more lives than it "destroys." Religious beliefs certainly play a role in the debate over the morality of embryo research. It is only to be expected that senators and representatives will enlist their spiritual leaders to guide them to the proper decision. But religion should not be the sole determining factor in this intricate debate. The Democrats seem to recognize this, but they too have their shortcomings.

Like their Republican counterparts, many Democrats see the issue of human embryo cloning all too clearly. The morality of cloning embryos is questionable, but some of our senators and representatives seem to think they have it all figured out. Countering Bush's conservative position, the predictably liberal Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) said, "We must not let the misplaced fears of today deny patients the cures of tomorrow. Congress was right to place medicine over ideology in the past, and we should do the same again as we confront the issue of cloning." Tinkering with the human life cycle should not be taken lightly because our fears may not be as misplaced as Kennedy claims. Behind the debate over medicine lie deep philosophical and religious issues that Kennedy should not be so quick to dismiss.

The solution to the debate over embryo research is not readily available. I certainly am not the arbiter of the morality of modern science and I cannot offer an emphatic argument for or against embryo research. However, what is certain is that our government must cast aside the special interests that so often manipulate their decisions in favor of a more well-thought-out, philosophical approach. The decision reached on embryo research will prove to be one of the most influential of our time. Yet, it seems as though our government has failed to consider the enormous import of its decision. The conclusion to the debate over embryo research will play a pivotal role in the health of our citizens and in the future of modern America and will set a precedent that will be difficult to ignore. Not only must the government weigh the pragmatic concerns associated with a ban on embryo research-namely, the detriment to the advancement of health care and the potential brain drain to Europe-but it must also embark on an evaluation of the morality of embryo research. It is astounding to consider the power that government holds over our lives. The government makes decisions as to the health of our families and it decides what is moral and what is not. A time of utmost importance such as this demands that our representatives listen to their constituents and explore the depths of the issue with the greatest of care.