“We as a society should not grow life to destroy it.”

-President George W. Bush

Giving the president the benefit of the doubt, perhaps he would care to explain why in vitro fertilization, which creates literally dozens of excess embryos which are discarded, is perfectly acceptable practice, a standard fare in the package of federal employee health benefits. Despite the 24/7 coverage of the war in Afghanistan, it has probably become common knowledge that Advanced Cell Technologies cloned the first human being last week, much to the uproar of the federal government and other “interested parties.”

All of this of course has caused a second look at the anti-cloning legislation rushed through Congress after the whole Dolly incident, when Scottish scientists successfully cloned a sheep. While at least some parties in the human cloning debate take a consistent position (the Vatican), others take a far more disturbingly hypocritical view toward cloning technology.

For instance, take the average response of the pro-choice lobby – “Very troubling,” says Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.). Strange words coming from a man who believes that the same embryos are subhuman beings whose fate is entirely contingent upon “choice” in the context of a woman’s uterus.

The pro-life lobby is not without exemption. How many protesters hang out in front of local fertility clinics, decrying the fate of all the unused fertilized eggs that will be disposed of? How many pro-life legislators seek a ban on federal funding for in vitro fertilizations?

For a nation in which the wanton destruction of human embryos on demand is legal and entrenched in well-established legal precedent (Roe v. Wade), why then is the destruction of excess and created embryos in the name of life-saving medicine (stem cells and therapeutic cloning) anathema?

Such vehement opposition isn’t even limited to a political faction. Opposition to cloning is a near-universal political constant. Proponents of therapeutic are relegated to a status normally reserved for Doctor Victor Frankenstein and his cohorts.

Yet, one is inclined to ask, given the current legal status assigned to embryos (non-human entities), unless taxpayer funding is involved with these projects, why is it an issue? Why should FBI agents come busting down the door for what amounts to life-saving medical research?

Or rather, what vested interest does the federal government have in what under separate statutes would amount to a legal non-issue? The standard response is that the federal government has a vested interest in matters which may drastically impact society, such as cloning. Such a response is far-fetched to say the least – the clones produced were hardly fitting of some insidious “evil clone army.” In fact, about 16 out of 18 of the fertilized eggs produced either died before dividing or shortly after dividing once. Such regulations thus seem to be based more in fear of far-flung theoretical consequences as opposed to real, existing issues.

This also raises a more important question. Must everything that the private sector does face the rigorous scrutiny of government oversight simply because of “potential” impact? Strangely enough, the Constitution’s well-defined powers don’t contain provisions against “safeguarding the public” against every new problem science presents us with. Perhaps it’s because the Founding Fathers simply didn’t perceive a day in which science and technology would become such pervasive and influential elements of society.

Or maybe they just didn’t think we needed it.

Government regulation of science has occurred for centuries, from designation of autopsies upon cadavers being regarded as “sinful” to the biotechnology debacles of today. Yet one way or another, science always seems to find a way, and we’re healthier, better nourished, and living longer, more productive lives because of it. Society hasn’t collapsed, families haven’t disintegrated, and mad scientists have failed to hold the world for ransom.

While genuine ethical objection may come into play in some scientific fields, this becomes a non-issue when the taxpayer is not forced to subsidize such affairs. Once the taxpayer’s conscience is removed from the equation, the matter becomes what our federal government’s job description is – defender of civil liberties from domestic and foreign threats or defender against all things with any form of potential impact on society?

Forgive me if I don’t root for the Luddites.

Steve Skutnik is a senior in physics from Palm Harbor, Fla.