So Jerry Seinfeld came to Eisenhower Auditorium a couple of weeks ago. Unfortunately, I couldn't find a ticket, and apparently columnists don't yet have "press-pass privileges." But even though I wasn't in attendance, I can imagine the topics of Mr. Seinfeld's talk: the weather, airplane food, and yada yada yada. I doubt, though, that stem-cell research was on the joke list.

That's unfortunate, because I feel his quizzical and sarcastic style of observational humor might have been able to highlight the absurdity of the issue. So allow me for a minute to play the surrogate stand-up: "What's the deal with stem cell research? I mean, it could save lives and alleviate pain for millions. We know where to get them, but instead we're looking for them everywhere else. It's like Columbus searching for the new world by going east."

OK, so I don't do the best Seinfeld impression. Instead I'll try my best scientist impression, for which I'm a little more qualified (see painful majors at end of column). Stem cell research has been beleaguered by the new conservative movement but hailed as one of the most promising developments of science by many others. Still, many people are uninformed on the matter, or worse yet, informed by the political pundits, rather than scientific experts.

I'm not intimating that scientists have the market cornered on truth, but science is inherently an outgrowth of logic. And so I think if left to develop their own objective and unbiased views, most people would come to the conclusion that stem cell research is beneficial and should be supported.

So before we get into the meat and potatoes of this debate, lets get the reasons for stem cell research on the table. 1) Your grandmother, suffering from Alzheimer's and unable to recognize you. 2) A friend's brother, a paraplegic who has trouble getting through the snow. 3) Your sister, recently diagnosed with breast cancer. Stem cells hold promise for these and virtually any other ailment you can dream up.

Why? Because stem cells can tell us how it is that we develop, and be used as a therauptics.

So what's the problem? The stems cells we're interested in are pluripotent (able to differentiate into any type of cell), and thus embryonic. This means, however, that they must be derived from a 100-cell blastocyst, a structure that in its natural environment would develop into a fetus. Why does all this matter? For some reason, we're couched in the idea that human life begins at conception, and so for some, the harvesting of cells is equated with murder. Let me repeat this last point. Some people wouldn't perceive a difference between a scientist harvesting cells from a five-day-old zygote and a crazed lunatic breaking into your house and killing your family. I find this idea a bit ridiculous, not because I'm irreligious, but because I don't understand where it came from.

I don't see any Biblical mandate consecrating the event of genetic recombination. Of course, others will disagree with me, and I only ask that they reference the verse dealing with stem cells and blastocysts when writing in to the editor.

No, it seems to me that this idea came from man. Well, I've got an idea of my own. What if life begins when we're able to experience the world through feelings and emotions -- when we've developed a nervous system? Now I can't pinpoint the exact day when this happens but I know it occurs after the blastocyst stage.

Perhaps the most important point to recognize is that these blastocysts would have no way of becoming people, even if you left them to their natural course.

It would truly be an immaculate conception if you could birth a baby from a Petri dish. That, to me, is what separates this issue from abortion, which I'm neither advocating nor opposing.

President Bush has felt passionate enough on this issue to impose a ban on federal funding for newly derived lines of stem cells. While I believe we should be anticipatory rather than reactionary about science whenever it can seriously impact society, I feel Bush has gone overboard. Rather than looking out for Americans, many of whom stand to benefit from this research, he has instead injected his own personal beliefs into public policy.

By restricting federally funded research, he had effectively tied the hands of U.S. scientists. They can't do this without the aegis of government funding. The National Institute of Health (NIH), National Science Foundation (NSF) and countless other organizations provide the fuel for the scientific machine that would otherwise be slow and inefficient.

And this brings me back to my confusion. Researching stem-cells may be one of the most humanistic endeavors we can pursue. In the end, I guess I just don't understand how we can imbue a small-celled structure with all the rights of a human being, but at the same time kill adults and children in wars largely without conscience.