Is there a way to pursue the possible benefits of embryonic stem-cell research without killing human embryos?

* Is there a way to pursue the possible benefits of embryonic stem-cell research without killing human embryos? Many prolife activists have insisted that adult stem-cell research offers just that potential. Now two new proposals are on the table. A pair of scientists told the Kass council on bioethics that some of the frozen embryos at fertility clinics are dead, that further research might make it possible to determine which ones are dead, and that usable stem cells might be taken from them. One of the council's own members, William Hurlbut, noted that incomplete fertilizations produce "teratomas" rather than embryos. Instead of using cloning to produce human embryos, it might be possible to produce teratomas from which to take stem cells. Our tentative judgment is that these approaches hold promise. As outlined, these procedures would not involve the deliberate ending of the lives of human beings. Research on animals should proceed to see, among other things, whether scientists can reliably create teratomas, rather than embryos. While the scientists go about their work, it remains the duty of politicians to enact the maximum feasible legal protection for human beings at all stages of development.