While the exact issue of whether scientific research, including stem cell and cloning-related research, is absolutely protected by the U.S. Constitution has not been conclusively decided by the Supreme Court (or other judicial entity), there are certain scientists, ethicists and legal experts who believe that scientific research is subject to such protection. In the NY Times yesterday, there was a short article on how, while the current President's Council on Bioethics would prefer to keep the Constitutionality of certain policies out of the picture, they may face a stern challenge if one arose.
It seems that only a very few may claim that scientific research doesn't merit some Constitutional protection. What the protection of the 1st Amendment runs at odds with, though, are the funding restrictions often placed by the government (for instance, the current ban on federal funding of research with new stem cell lines). What is the line that will be drawn for when the restriction on funding becomes a de facto ban on that type of research in general? When does the Executive Branch's power to dictate funding options for scientific research become trumped by the 1st Amendment?
Comments