Ethically, it enshrines the principle that it is wrong to benefit from experiments on someone you have killed, but right if someone else has done it for you.

It is bad economics because he has awarded monopoly powers to a handful of companies and universities. Already scientists are moaning about price gouging and litigation over patent rights. As well, the genetic quirks of a mere 60 different batches could cause some patients to reject the tissues created by these cells, so there will be great pressure after a while to create more batches.

A federal parliamentary committee will soon recommend legislation governing reproductive and so-called "therapeutic" cloning, in which a human embryo is destroyed to provide stem cells. But there is no point in using Bush's decision as a precedent.

In girding up for our own debate, two vital issues ought to be borne in mind. First, health must not be purchased at the expense of human dignity.

There is a certain scepticism in Australia towards arguments over embryos: Does it really make sense to fuss over a microscopic blob of cells? However, other countries take these blobs very seriously. To his credit, Bush thought it one of the most important decisions he would make as President.

"Research on embryonic stem cells raises profound ethical questions, because extracting the stem cell destroys the embryo and thus destroys its potential for life," he said. "Like a snowflake, each of these embryos is unique, with the unique potential of an individual human being."

Bush's reservations must not be dismissed as pandering to the American religious Right. Only a few weeks ago, the federal President of Germany, Johannes Rau, asserted vigorously that "it really does not take a believing Christian to know and to feel that certain possibilities and plans of biotechnology and genetic engineering run contrary to fundamental values of human life".

In Germany, the fertilised egg cell is protected. "Those who do not share the view that human life begins at this point must answer the question: From what other point should human life enjoy full protection?" Rau asked. "Not even important objectives of medical research should determine from what point human life should be protected."

Second, the latest research shows, in any case, that stem cells taken from non-embryonic cells are equally, if not more effective, in combating an incredible range of injuries and diseases. Why should human life in its embryonic stage be destroyed if the alternative is ethically unobjectionable and more useful? Consider some of the following findings:

Researchers at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in the US injected non-embryonic stem cells into the spinal fluid of paralysed mice and rats, half of which recovered, partially or fully;

Jonas Frisen, from NeuroNova AB, a Stockholm-based biotech firm, says of his research: "We have demonstrated that the potency of these [adult stem] cells was far greater than expected and what seemed to be a fairly restricted cell type can give rise to many different types of cells. These recent findings may turn some previous concepts upside down.";

CELLS from human fat have been transformed into bone, muscle, cartilage and mature fat cells by researchers at the University of California Los Angeles. Their usefulness "makes it hard to argue that we should use embryonic cells," one of them told The Los Angeles Times.

The local debate over cloning is certain to be fought with the ferocity of junkyard dogs by its supporters. (Perhaps this is to be expected from a branch of science whose pioneers were veterinarians.) Alan Trounson and Martin Pera, of Monash University, and five other scientists plus the quadriplegic actor Christopher Reeve, recently tried to bypass the political process by turning to the courts. They sued the Bush administration for illegally withholding funding for stem cell research, alleging that delaying the creation of therapies was causing "irreparable harm".

As Bush pointed out in his speech, ambitious claims like these are often hot air. Eight years ago, the injection of fetal tissue from aborted babies was touted as the salvation of patients with Parkinson's disease. Not long ago, without much publicity, research was stopped – because the patients' condition had actually worsened.

The Australian parliament has still to make up its mind on stem-cell research. There is only one safe and well-informed way that safeguards human dignity: to ban all cloning of human embryos for research.