This paper examines embryonic stem cell research from ethical, political, and scientific perspectives, arguing that federal funding restrictions are counterproductive and that most moral objections can be addressed through continued research. The paper explains the biology of embryonic stem cells, surveys opposition from religious and pro-life groups, and critiques President Bush's 2006 veto of expanded funding legislation. It contends that the majority of Americans support federal investment in stem cell research, that restricting such funding merely redistributes resources or drives research abroad, and that the therapeutic potential of embryonic stem cells for diseases such as Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, diabetes, and spinal cord injuries justifies moving forward responsibly.
Embryonic stem cell research is not practically "embryonic," and most of the ethical objections raised against it could be resolved through further research. Restricting federal funding would not halt embryonic stem cell research; it would only lead to a redistribution of research funds. Moreover, the majority of Americans support embryonic stem cell research, which is essential for treating those who suffer from serious diseases.
Research on stem cells has been vehemently criticized both politically and morally, drawing biologists into ethical debates and generating tremendous public enthusiasm in this area of biology (Lovell-Badge, 88). Why does stem cell research attract such broad public interest? In large part because it requires government funding. Its prospects for international collaboration also create the need for regulations governing such exchanges. Ultimately, the possibility that stem cell research could lead to marketable medical products necessitates input from the Food and Drug Administration (Bobrow, 140). Much of the debate, however, has been conducted on an emotional basis, pitting the hope of treating acute medical conditions against the moral convictions of many Americans. To reach an informed conclusion on human embryonic stem cell research, it is essential to understand clearly what embryonic stem cells are and to assess more precisely the realistic medical benefits they may provide (Condic, 31).
Scientists have been aware of stem cells for many decades, but it was only in 1998 that a method was devised for culturing these cells from human embryos over extended periods and through multiple cell divisions (Marwick, 1192). Stem cells are defined as cells with the power to develop into any of the approximately 300 different types of cells in the human body (Perrone, A5). They are remarkable for their capacity to self-renew and to differentiate into varied cell types. Some stem cells are classified as totipotent, possessing an enormous capability to self-renew and become distinct cell types. Embryonic stem cells are pluripotent, meaning they can generate tissues from all three germ layers, yet are incapable of constituting an entire living organism (Cogle; Guthrie; Sanders; Allen; Scot; Petersen, 993).
In an adult organism, as stem cells undergo division, some progeny develop into specialized cell types such as heart or muscle cells, while others remain as stem cells, prepared to divide again to produce new specialized cells to address the body's daily wear and tear. Such stem cells are potent enough to regenerate and renew tissue indefinitely over a human lifetime (John, 47).
Another type of stem cell is found in the human embryo. The human embryo begins as a single totipotent cell, created when a sperm fertilizes an egg. A totipotent cell can develop into an embryo, the tissues needed to support the embryo in the uterus, and all the tissues and organs that ultimately form the adult human. As embryonic development proceeds, stem cells begin to specialize. They form a hollow sphere known as a blastocyst, which contains an outer cell mass that will become the placenta and an inner cell mass that will become all the tissues of the human body. The cells in the inner cell mass are called pluripotent because, although they cannot form the supporting tissues of the uterus, they are capable of generating almost any cell type in the human body. These pluripotent stem cells are at the center of the current ethical debate over the use of embryonic stem cells in research (John, 47).
Understanding the moral and political opposition to stem cell research is essential for evaluating whether the debate is well founded (Cogle; Guthrie; Sanders; Allen; Scot; Petersen, 994). The most significant worldwide moral opposition comes from the Catholic Church, even though many individual American Catholics do not share this position. The official Catholic stance opposes in vitro fertilization on the grounds that it is unnatural and produces embryos that are not used (Stem Cell Research: News batch).
Anti-abortion groups oppose embryonic stem cell research because it results in the destruction of human embryos (Gareth; Byrne; Jones, 6). Many conservative pro-life individuals and organizations consider the destruction of a blastocyst — a laboratory-fertilized human egg — to be equivalent to ending a human life. They believe that life begins at conception and that terminating this pre-born life is morally offensive. They argue that it is unethical to destroy a days-old human embryo even for the purpose of saving or healing an existing human life (Pros & Cons of Embryonic Stem Cell Research). The Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics states: "Destroying human embryonic life is not required for making medical advances, as alternative forms of obtaining human stem cells and of repairing and regenerating human tissues exist and would continue to be developed" (Perrone, A5).
Many critics also argue that insufficient attention has been paid to the potential of adult stem cells, which have already been successfully used to treat various conditions. They contend that too little significance has been given to umbilical cord blood as a source for stem cell research. Opponents of embryonic stem cell research advocate directing grants primarily toward adult stem cell research in order to avoid the ethical concerns associated with the use of human embryos. They also note that no treatments have yet been produced through embryonic stem cell therapy (Pros & Cons of Embryonic Stem Cell Research).
"Bush's 2006 veto and political resistance to funding"
"Arguments for research funding and therapeutic potential"
"Polling data and nuanced pro-life support for research"
Perry, Daniel. Patients' Voices: The Powerful Sound in the Stem Cell Debate. Science. Vol. 287, No. 5457. 25 February 2000. p. 1423.
Schwartz, Robert S. The Politics and Promise of Stem-Cell Research. The New England Journal of Medicine. Vol. 355, No. 12. 21 September 2006. pp. 1189–1191.
Sherlock, Richard; Morrey, John D. Ethical Issues in Biotechnology. Rowman & Littlefield. 2002.
Stem Cell Research. August 2006. Retrieved from Accessed 3 November 2006.
The Economics of Stem-Cell Research — Posner. 20 August 2006. Retrieved from Accessed 3 November 2006.
Winston, Robert. Embryonic Stem Cell Research — The Case For… Nature Medicine. Vol. 7, No. 1. 2001. pp. 396–397.
You’re 32% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.