The ongoing debate over embryonic stem cell research has made headlines in recent weeks after U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth granted an injunction against President Barack Obama’s new guidelines easing research restrictions placed on the National Institute of Health by the Bush Administration.

Federally funding such research has been a complicated issue since the discovery of pluripotent embryonic stem cells in 1998.

Here comes the science:

Four to six days after conception, a fertilized egg has differentiated into a mass of cells known as a blastocyst. The stem cells contained within this blastocyst are known as the inner cell mass, and are considered a new frontier of scientific discovery for two reasons: under the proper conditions, these cells differentiate into all 220 different cell types found in the human body, and on proper growth media, are able to propagate indefinitely.

This is of particular scientific interest for a number of reasons. Cloning cells — making exact copies — is extremely difficult as cellular function becomes more specialized, due to mutations during the cellular replication process. Stem cells do this inherently. Secondly, while adult stem cells also possess the ability to differentiate into other cells, these are highly specialized types. This is why bone marrow transplants are used to treat leukemia and immune disorders: The cells within the marrow replace the blood cells that are cancerous or malfunctioning. However, what they cannot do is replace other tissue or cell types.

A provision known as the Dickey-Wicker Amendment was attached in 1995 to the federal appropriations bill; specifically prohibiting the use of federal research money to create or destroy human embryos used in scientific research. It has been included in every spending bill since 1996, even after the 1998 discovery of embryonic stem cells, therefore hobbling any research conducted or sponsored by NIH.

Bush’s executive policy regarding stem cell research additionally restricted federally-funded researchers to stem cell lines produced before August 2001, and it was this policy Obama overturned. The Obama policy still prohibits the creation of new stem cell lines, but allows researchers to use existing lines produced in private labs.

James L. Sherley, of Boston, and Theresa Deisher, of Seattle, are the plaintiffs in the civil suit against the new federal guidelines. Both are federally-funded adult stem cell researchers, both oppose embryonic stem cell research and both are staunchly pro-life.

Sherley has a history of theatrics, including a 12-day hunger strike after being denied tenure at MIT. He’s also authored several letters to local Boston newspapers, opposing columns and articles he considers pro-abortion. Both also feel the Obama policy increases competition for limited federal funding, and therefore detrimental to their work.

The Senate Appropriations Health Subcommittee held a hearing Thursday regarding the issue, and heard concerns from NIH Director Francis S. Collins regarding 244 grants totaling $200 million currently on hold. Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, has introduced legislation to continue federal funding, as has pro-life Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Pa. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, a staunch pro-life advocate, has been among the most vocal proponents of stem cell research.

Embryonic stem cell research has absolutely nothing to do with abortion. Embryos used in stem cell research come from leftover eggs during the in vitro fertilization process. If these embryos are left inside the uterus, you end up with Kate Gosselin and Octomom. These embryos are already classified as medical waste, and thus slated for destruction.

Certain persons are inclined to equate this practice with abortion, and therefore tantamount to murder. It isn’t.

More than 33 percent of fertilized embryos naturally fail to implant into the endometrium. While almost every form of birth control is designed to prevent fertilization, intrauterine devices and birth control pills are also designed to prevent implantation. If the destruction of a blastocyst is considered murder, then by that logic prescribed birth control is pre-meditated murder and miscarriages are involuntary manslaughter.

Those opposed to embryonic stem cell research on pro-life grounds are simply misinformed. The blastocysts used in stem cell research aren’t any more of a person than the sperm and egg cell they came from. The fetal heart doesn’t beat until the fifth week of gestation, and rudimentary brain activity takes at least 52 days to begin. If we’re still talking about the destruction of potential human life, every male has been committing genocide since adolescence.

The ISD Editorial Board supports legislation lifting the current federal restrictions on embryonic stem cell research. This isn’t because we’re godless heathens, we just support science.

There are those who believe such research is unethical. Others say that they don’t want their tax dollars subsidizing embryo destruction — since when has tax distribution been up to the taxed? Never, that’s when.

Some have gone so far as to argue that the benefits of said research have been grossly exaggerated, which is ridiculous. We can’t possibly know the benefits of stem cells without doing the science, and that’s impossible when we deny people the resources to do so.

If the United States is to remain at the forefront scientific and technological advancement, stem cell research should not only be legal, but encouraged. Competition for federal grants is a fantastic catalyst for scientific achievement, and given the potential benefits of stem cells, it’s a shame bad politics stand in the way of progress.