The issue of federal funding for embryonic stem cell research is both an emotional and ethical disagreement between the advancement of science and the value of human life. People who support this controversial research think that despite an immoral and unethical side of it, the possible benefits are more important. Opponents of human embryonic stem cell research state that in a decent human society moral and ethical value should put limitations on scientific research: do no harm to human life. The science by itself is the method to get knowledge; Gene Tarne and David Prentice note "it can determine that one way may be more effective or more efficient than another. But efficient does not mean morally acceptable"(5). The government should not provide taxpayer funding for this research. The three reasons are: the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, there is no proof of a real successful cure found, and a danger to patients receiving stem cell therapy. .
.
The first reason why embryonic stem cell research should not get federal funding is the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, which became a law in 1996. Adam Keiper and Yuvan Levin explain this law: "as a part of the annual budget legislation, forbids federal funding for (1) the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research purposes; or (2) research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death"(1). The only way to derive embryonic stem cells is to destroy a human embryo, which is a violation of the federal law. According to these authors, Bill Clinton in 1999 and Barack Obama in 2004, were proposing to fund further research after collecting stem cells from destroyed embryo (2). It means that government would not fund the process of killing embryos, but would fund the further research. This idea definitely is a violation of the intent of the law. In 2001, President Bush proposed another policy.