For all of 24 hours there were those in the US administration who thought President George Bush had been given an "out" by the Pope. At their Tuesday meeting in the Vatican, Pope John Paul had spoken clearly of the immorality of producing human embryos for scientific research.
Could that possibly mean he was giving the nod on behalf of the Catholic Church to the use of embryos which had been produced for other purposes?
If so, Mr Bush was going to be spared considerable agonising over a moral issue that in a matter of weeks has gathered legs to become a defining one for his presidency.
Was there a hint that the Pontiff was prepared to see an application of the principle of second effect to research that might hold the key to Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and diabetes? Was he prepared to accept that the use of stem cells from embryos which would otherwise be discarded by fertility clinics was morally justified in such research?
No way. On Wednesday the Vatican spokesman, Dr Joaquin Navarro-Valls, moved quickly to dispel any notion of flexibility on the issue and to reiterate the church's stand, quoting from the Pope's 1995 encyclical Evangelium Vitae. This specifically condemns the destruction of embryos produced for invitro fertilisation.
It was a classic reaffirmation of the church's line that life begins at the moment of conception, a view shared with fundamentalist Protestants. Not so with Jews or Muslims, who hold, as the Catholic Church did before 1869 for all but three years in the late 16th century, that "ensoulment", the infusion of a soul into a new being, occurs at 40 days.
That argument has now painfully split sections of the antiabortion movement in the US. And Mr Bush, a fervent antiabortion campaigner, has to decide whether to back - horror of horrors! - a Clinton compromise which allows federal funding for stem cell research if, and only if, such cells are taken from surplus embryos which have been produced for other purposes.
"We're into new territory here," one White House official told the New York Times, "and it doesn't slice nice."
At issue is the pinhead-sized embryo at less than a week from fertilisation. Known as a blastocyst, it is a number of distinct, self-dividing cells which are capable of developing individually into any tissue or organ.
Once harvested by scientists from the embryo, these cells can be persuaded using special triggers to replicate almost ad infinitum into the desired tissue, laying the basis for a novel kind of therapy that some are calling regenerative medicine.
While stem cells can also be harvested from adults, a procedure acceptable to the Catholic Church, such cells are already pre-programmed to become particular tissues and are not nearly as useful to researchers.
But is a five-day embryo truly a human life or merely a "possible" life whose protection does not warrant the same kind of imperative? The beginnings of the nervous system do not appear until 14 days after fertilisation. And the early embryo can split, leading to the birth of twins, so that individuality, it could be argued, begins some days after fertilisation.
Senator Orrin Hatch, a Republican and veteran of the anti-abortion movement, has written a memo to Mr Bush arguing that the embryo acquires its human status only on implantation in the womb.
"I believe that life begins in the womb, not a petri-dish or refrigerator," he says. Others argue that the concept of independent viability should be used as a yardstick.
Ethics apart, the politics of the issue have acquired a momentum of their own, not least because Mr Bush has deferred a decision, letting it be known he is agonising over his choice. And there is no easy compromise.
A senior adviser sees the issue as "the biggest of his presidency in terms of long-term impact". His chief political adviser, Mr Karl Rove, is determined to steer him away from backing the research, arguing that it would alienate him from the strategically key 44 million Catholic electorate.
Although polls show most of them back limited research, some Republican strategists believe that if Mr Bush can win an endorsement of sorts from the Catholic Hierarchy - hence the visit to the Pope - that could overcome doubts some Catholic voters might have on specific issues.
But as polls also show a general decline in support for Mr Bush, he also wants to reach out to middle America and not be seen as a hostage to the most extreme elements in his constituency.
With anti-abortionists like Senator Hatch, and even Nancy Reagan, backing the research, for Mr Bush to oppose it will be seen universally as capitulation to the most conservative elements in his party.
"It's an opportunity for him, having fully established his conservative credentials, to establish compassionate credentials," says Senator Susan Collins, a Republican supporter of the research.
Significantly, a key friend and ally of Mr Bush, Dr Bill Frist, the only medical doctor in the Senate and another influential anti-abortion campaigner, came out last week to argue that stemcell research's promise is such that it should be supported by the state, but in a carefully regulated framework. Many believe that is the way Mr Bush will jump.
But the waters have been muddied somewhat since the announcement by a Virginian biotech firm that it intends to produce embryos specifically and uniquely for research purposes. No one in their wildest dreams expects Mr Bush to go as far as allowing funding for such work, but the announcement, anti-stem cell campaigners say, shows just how cavalier scientists are capable of being. They should not be trusted. This is a slippery slope we should not go down. So the arguments go.
A Massachusetts firm went one step further and announced that it was trying to clone embryos for the same purpose. And the debate has spawned a major lobbying effort on both sides, with patients' organisations bringing in stars like Michael J. Fox and Mary Tyler Moore to Congress to testify to the benefits of research while opponents bang the "life is life is life" argument.
In one case a couple brought their twin children into a congressional hearing. Having explained that the children were the products of adopted "surplus" embryos from a fertility clinic, the husband asked: "Which of my children would you kill?"
psmyth@irish-times.ie]
