Gold River - The 21st century holds promise for untold scientific and medical discoveries. In this new age of discovery, science seeks to conquer new frontiers that will dramatically improve the human condition. But within the potential to "do good" lies an important question: Are the means used to accomplish a noble purpose justified?

Unfortunately, this is a question science by itself is methodologically incapable of answering. Although science can tell us what we can do, it cannot tell us what we should do. That matter is a question more suitable for the field of ethics.

There is perhaps no clearer example of this ongoing tension between science and ethics than the debate over destruction of human embryos for stem cell research. All Americans desire a cure for diseases such as childhood diabetes, lupus, multiple sclerosis and other disabling and life-threatening conditions.

This is not a hypothetical matter for me. My brother John suffers from Parkinson's disease.

Of course I want to see everything done to help him and to find a cure for others in the same situation. However, the daunting ethical question is whether this appropriate human desire in all of us justifies destroying human life to benefit other human beings. Is it appropriate for human life to be used as a means to an end? What does it mean to suggest that the legal policy of the state should place less value on some human life based merely on its maturity?

These questions require serious consideration before our nation moves down an irreversible path.

First, it is not enough for embryonic stem cell research supporters to flippantly deny ethical concerns about destroying human life simply by questioning the religious motives of some research opponents. That rhetorical dodge fails to address the substance of the argument. More important, it does not accurately characterize the scope of opposition to such research.

Judy Norsigian, author of "Our Bodies, Ourselves" and one of the world's most prominent feminists, signed the rebuttal argument to California's Proposition 71, which in 2004 funded embryonic stem cell research to the tune of $3 billion plus interest costs. As the May/June issue of Foreign Policy magazine illustrates, opposition to such research outside the United States includes large numbers of Euro-leftists and Greens.

So opponents of embryonic stem cell research include many who would not be identified with those of us in the pro-life camp when it comes to the issue of abortion.

Second, proponents of using human embryos for stem cell research have sought to portray anyone raising ethical questions about it as opposed to stem cell research itself. This is a clever, but inaccurate, attempt to change the subject.

Adult stem cells have been used to treat thousands of patients with dozens of diseases. And the House of Representatives recently voted to fund research on umbilical cord blood stem cells.

Finally, one of the more puzzling assertions is that opponents of embryonic stem cell research seek to politicize science. The issue before Congress has been whether government will fund such research. The more subtle implication of this argument, however, is that there is something inappropriate about regulatory limits on scientific research.

Our nation's experience with the Tuskegee medical experiments should raise serious questions about a laissez-faire approach to this question. That tragic experiment involved the rationalization by public health authorities that the ends of research justified the failure to actually treat poor African American patients for syphilis.

It should be a solemn reminder that the very notion of democracy is incompatible with the idea of a technocratic elite.

    About the writer:

        * U.S. Rep Dan Lungren, R-Gold River, is a member of the House Judiciary Committee and former attorney general of California. He can be reached through his Web site at www.house.gov/lungren/talkto.htm.