Those who call themselves pro-life and still do not support stem cell research in light of breakthrough discoveries that circumvent ethical concerns are behaving against their purpose. It make little sense to prevent the use of embryonic stem cells for research, especially now that two new ways of generating stem cells – one involving transforming a skin cell into the embryonic state in such a way that it prevents the embryo from implanting in the uterus, and the other derived without the need to destroy an embryo – are now being implemented by scientists.

The techniques have been developed in mice and have yet to be performed on humans, but scientists are convinced the difference in species won’t affect their research, because mice and humans are similar to one another at the embryonic level. These converted and unfertilized cells have no way of becoming life, yet some pro-life groups are somehow still against research on these cells.

The new techniques get around ethical arguments that the majority of the pro-life community insisted should prevent further development in stem cell research, and now only a relatively small minority of this community, those that do not support in vitro fertilization, are opposing this new method.

The benefits of stem cell research have been obvious from the start – scientists who study these cells are doing it for the very reason of saving life, not destroying it. And other advantages of stem cell research go far beyond the medical benefits alone: The job market in this field of research, in a state regarded as a leader in biotech research and development, could explode if the federal government provided funding for research.

Though Massachusetts lawmakers say they lack the resources to provide enough state funding for this research, the state is currently ranked only second to California in the biotech industry, and that state earlier this year approved a $3 billion initiative to advance stem cell research.

But Congress still refuses to grant any federal funding on research on stem cells, and President Bush has only exempted a small number of existing lines of stem cells used by federally supported scientists.

It is almost criminal to oppose these new methods, because millions of suffering and terminally ill patients could benefit from this kind of research. Those who advocate a right to life and still oppose stem cell research are doing so without a logical defense.

Because the two new procedures are still in the making, many scientists would still have to use the more common method of deriving stem cells that most pro-life groups oppose, but rather than waiting until these more ethical means of deriving stem cells become more common, these groups should realize that the enormous benefits of research on stem cells cannot be put on hold.