The controversy concerning embryonic stem cell research is this: Should federal taxpayer dollars be used to sacrifice the life of human embryos to provide raw fodder for scientific research?

President Bush and millions of Americans, including thousands joining me in today’s March for Life against the Roe v. Wade decision, answer “no.”

Furthermore, I plead with my colleagues to end this phony political argument: It is no longer necessary to sacrifice the life of “surplus” human embryos to advance embryonic stem cell research.

I am the only member of Congress who took advanced embryology courses while earning both a master’s and a doctorate in human physiology. I also have a 100 percent pro-life voting record. I have been following stem cell research developments closely since 2001.

Purposeful destruction of human embryos for speculative research, though it holds great promise for the ultimate goal of developing treatments for devastating diseases and conditions of human patients, violates the moral code of millions of Americans. The late Pope John Paul II put it this way: “[A]ny form of scientific research which treats the embryo merely as a laboratory specimen is unworthy of man.”

Respect for life and respect for individuals are two of the inalienable rights embedded in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution that have made our country so great. No one can dispute that each human embryo is genetically unique.

Each could become one of the snowflake babies adopted from surplus frozen embryos. Each could become the next Martin Luther King or Madame Curie. That is why I support the president’s policies that limit federal funding for embryonic stem cell research to those cell lines already in existence in 2001 and to other techniques that do not harm human embryos.

By definition, embryonic stem cells are pluripotent. That is, they generate all of the different types of cells, tissues and organs of the body. That is why pluripotent stem cells are so highly valued by researchers. More than 30 years of research with adult stem cells, such as those derived from bone marrow, have generated more than 73 treatments for human patients.

Embryonic stem cell lines (ESCs) were first derived in 1998 using a technique that destroys the embryo. To date, there are no ESC treatments approved for human patients. However, any scientist betrays the scientific method if he or she claims that adult or embryonic stem cells will ultimately yield different or better treatments.

Pluripotent stem cell research has rapidly advanced while the debate in Congress has stagnated. In 2007, researchers in both Japan and the United States have independently verified techniques to reprogram adult skin cells to produce induced pluripotent stem cells or (IPSCs) with the same ability to form all tissue types as ESCs.

One of them included Dr. James Thompson, who produced the first human embryonic stem cell lines. He has concluded that ESCs have continuing long-term interest for scientists, but IPSCs hold much more near-term promise for patients.

He cited moral objections and continuing technical hurdles encountered with ESCs and the ability of IPSCs to provide treatments for individual patients because they would be genetically identical. Dr. Robert Lanza has just claimed success producing ESCs from frozen human embryos without harming them using a biopsy approach I first suggested in 2001.

The question before the Democratic leaders of Congress is simple: What is more important — advancing science or politics?

Only politics justifies continuing the strategy to permit votes only on legislation that would spend taxpayer dollars for destructive embryonic stem cell research — legislation that President Bush has vetoed and vows to veto.

There is common-ground legislation that could gain near universal bipartisan support and be signed into law. Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.), an OB-GYN, and I introduced H.R. 322, which has 130 cosponsors. It would authorize federal funding for research that derives pluripotent stem cell lines without creating or destroying human embryos. In the last Congress, 100 senators and 273 House members voted to pass similar legislation to H.R. 322 (H.R. 5526/S. 2754). Sixty-three senators, including Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.), as well as House Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), have voted to fund destructive embryonic stem cell research as well as to limit federal funds to pluripotent stem cell research that does not create or destroy human embryos.

Who benefits from continued diversion of our attention and delays in federal funding for pluripotent stem cell research that does not sacrifice human life for science?

I am hopeful that the 110th Congress will end the political debates, arguments and fundraising appeals over the obsolete tradeoff that human embryos must be sacrificed in order for scientists to fulfill the hopes of suffering patients and their families.

Bartlett is a member of the House Science and Technology Committee.