Search

Human embryonic stem cell (hESC) research has sparked incredible scientific and public excitement as well as significant controversy. Because they are pluripotent, hESCs can in theory be differentiated into any type of cell found in the human body. Thus they evoke great enthusiasm about potential clinical applications. They are controversial because the method used to derive hESC lines destroys a 2-4 day old human embryo. Research and discoveries using human pluripotent stem cells are simultaneously cutting edge contributions to fundamental understanding and potentially invaluable sources of new treatments for some our most devastating diseases and injuries. Stem cell science represents an important case of “use-inspired basic research,” a class of scientific work that Donald Stokes (1997) compellingly argued could be used to reframe the increasingly fragile “contract” between science and society (Guston & Kenniston 1994). In this case, however, federal funding restrictions, legal challenges, and public controversy imposed on the field's development. Thus, hESC research also offers a “laboratory” for examining the effects high level science policy decisions have on the trajectory of an emerging scientific field. Today, nearly fifteen years after the discoveries that made human pluripotent stem cell science feasible, continued federal funding for this research is highly uncertain. We believe that federal funding for human pluripotent stem cell science should be expanded and stabilized through legislation. Explaining why requires that we begin with a simplified, schematic history of the field.