Controversy Surrounding Research And Therapeutic Use Of Stem Cell Technology

“How can the use of stem cells be so controversial?”, one may ask. If the stem cells are donated out of free will or were going to be destroyed anyway, how can putting them to better use be controversial? Sure, a potential life must be destroyed to save a life, but only before one can tell that it is a human. Should the use of stem cells for medical research and use be regulated? These questions and more will be discussed and pondered throughout this paper.

Abortion, gay marriage, and illegal immigration are all hot button topics currently being faced by Americans. As ardently as each side defends their stance on a controversial issue, an opposing side fights with equal diligence for the beliefs they feel should be valued by our nation. Perhaps nowhere is this battle more heated than in the fight over stem cell research. While supporters of this new field of science tout it’s potential to cure everything from blindness to paralysis, those against stem cell science liken the procedures used by scientists to murder. It is my intention to bring to light the positive benefits of stem cell research as well as counter the claims used by many Pro-life groups who believe the scientists driving this

Stem cells are defined as the population of cells within an organism that retains its ability to divide and differentiate into various cell types. Since the early 1980s, scientists have researched the use of stem cells in the treatment of various human diseases such as cancer and diabetes. The research has sparked a controversial debate worldwide due to the nature of stem cell research and the source of pluripotent stem cells used in research. Stem cell research is a necessity, despite the source of pluripotent stem cells, because the research has led to breakthrough information involving the treatment diseases and injuries and the use of stem cells to replace damaged cells.

This debate examines the controversies that arise regarding stem cell research and whether or not the cell is an inherent human person. She points to five values that one, as a catholic theology thinker, should focus on. These five values are: The value of nascent life, the value of moral virtue or moral integrity, the value of medical benefits, the value of distributive justice or just institutions, and the value of a social ethos of generosity and solidarity (Lysaught, page 696). One of the most important values that Lysaught touches upon would be the value of moral virtue. Specifically from the Christian standpoint, morals are key to fulfilling a virtuous life. Lysaught claims that, “This value may be translated into the principle that one ought always to act with moral integrity and never act against one’s conscience” (Lysaught, page 699). Here, Lysaught is arguing for the importance of our own free will as well as the inherent values that we as people are capable of using. Most arguments in favor of stem cell research come from the research that shows the promising potential use of the cells, such as treating or potentially curing diabetes, spinal injuries, Alzheimer’s, and many other life threatening chronic diseases. This hope for the cells however comes at a serious cost according to Christians. A Christian

In 2001, President Bush emphasized “Embryonic stem cell research offers both great promise and great peril. So I have decided we must proceed with great care” (Bush). This decision not only halted the research but it forced new scientists and researchers to find new ways to use stem cells in an ethical way or they were basically forced out of the country to finish their progress. But in 2009, President Obama lifted this ban for stem cell research that Bush implemented. Although there is an amendment, the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, that still blocks funding for stem cell research that has to do with embryos. Along with Bush’s’ statement, the amendment pressured stem cell researchers to find new ways to get cells that are as pluripotent as the embryonic stem cells that come from the newly fertilized embryos. But the real question is how is the use of embryonic

The transfer of information, often shared through scientific reports and research, puts this topic in a highly international spotlight. Many supporters believe that stem cells will be able to help solve once untreatable diseases or injuries such as spinal cord injuries, skin burns, Parkinson’s disease, and some blood disorders. However, the main argument is if stem cells should be used in finding therapeutic treatments. The use of embryonic stem cells is viewed by many as a moral inconsistency; it is opposed by religious organizations and individuals believing that this research should be abandoned and existing, alternative methods be adapted.

Stem cell research is one of the most promising and controversial topics is the past few decades. Stem cells were discovered by a group of scientists in 1981 by deriving embryonic stem cells from mouse embryos. The discovery of stem cell derived from mouse embryos then progressed to the discovery of deriving and creating stem cell from a human embryo is 1998. In 1998 when scientists discovered a way of deriving stem cells from a human embryo is when the controversy began. The main controversy of stem cell research is the destruction of an embryo for sceintific and medical purposes. Other controversies are whether federal governments should fund and support research is ban the use of stem cell for medical and research purposes. Various religions

In recent years, stem cell research has become a prominent way of treating: heart disease, cancer, HIV/AIDS, spinal problems, and much more ; moreover, in recent years as Stem cell research became more popular, it has sparked controversy over the religion aspect of stem cell research. Stem cell research begins with culturing an embryonic cell and then injecting the stem cell into the area of concern(Robertson). Pluripotent stem cells are gathered and used to treat the areas, pluripotent stem cells are those that are in the earliest stages of development ; in addition, at this stage, cells can learn the jobs and take shape of cells that did the job once before (Robertson).

Pro-stem cell research scientists have found that citing fertility clinics as a similar field severely lessens the educated opposition against their work. This is because most pro-life advocates and mainstream Christians are advocates for the use of fertility clinics to help struggling couples get pregnant. They view fertility clinics as a place to help create life, not take it. In this, I speak from personal experience, as many of my Christian friends and relatives have been in and out of fertility clinics throughout the years, attempting to procreate a being to love, raise, and care for.

Until two scientists isolated the first embryonic stem cells in 1981 (stemcell.child), the controversy in embryonic stem cell research was never discussed. For, an embryo was never able to survive outside of the womb until then; however, today, this topic is widely discussed among ethicists, medical professions, politicians, and more for several reasons. On one side of the argument, embryonic stem cells have the capability of repairing damaged tissue, and with further research it is believed that these cells will be able to cure or provide relief to several diseases and disabilities seen today. On the other hand, embryonic stem cell research is seen as morally unjust because it is seen as the destruction of a potential human life

While some people might say that stem cell research is immoral and unethical, others believe that it is a magical solution for almost any problem, thus leading to a very controversial issue. Scientists have been searching for years for ways to eradicate incurable diseases and perform other medical procedures that yesterday's technology would not fix. With the rapidly arising, positive research on stem cell technology, the potential that exists to restore any deficiency is in the same way, likely to destroy humanity. America is suffering from its inability to choose who holds precedence over this issue. Too many of us find it impossible to reach a basis for which our differing opinions can be shared and formed into a universal and

“The misleading debate on stem cell research” written by Mona Charen is a cautionary tale of the escalating manner in which life will be dehumanized should society begin to support this research with federal funding. Stem cell research crosses a moral line that society should be reluctant to cross even for the best intentions (Charen). Stem cell research has been picketed by pro-lifers since the first whispers of its use. The results of stem cell research are rarely attacked since we really don’t know the fruits of such research without funding and supporting it. In the United States, stem cell research remains legal, however it is not funded by the government. Germany, Italy, Portugal, Luxembourg, and Austria all have a ban on it, begging the question to be asked “What do they know that we don’t?” (Charen). Going a step further we are warned that scientists have been frustrated by their inability to ascertain certain results, speculating things will go a step further. What is to stop the research from moving forward to allowing an embryo to reach a later stage of development (Charen)? It is easy to shame society into shying from the idea of growing embryos for spare body parts to be dismantled by mad scientists, and yet that is not where the argument currently lies. Instead, scientists use embryos that will be discarded and whom the owner has agreed to their donation to science. It is wrong to take a scientific matter and wrap it in a morality issue.

The embryos that are not implanted basically waste away and are of no use. Advocates of stem cell research argue that these embryos should be used to help people. The opposing side continues to argue that using embryos is unethical. According to the National Academy of Sciences, researchers hope that “harnessing the capabilities of stem cells could then help repair damaged and diseased organs or provide alternatives to organ transplants. Stem cell therapy could offer hope for the millions who suffer from spinal-cord injuries, cardiovascular disease, autoimmune disease, diabetes, osteoporosis, cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease and other disorders.”13 Keeping this information in mind, it would be difficult for many people to be against this research. As a result, a Harris poll was conducted and found that 73% of Americans support the research, and there is a majority support among Republicans. The opposing side of the poll believes the research is immoral fell from 32% to 15% over only three years.14 As public opinion becomes more and more overwhelmingly positive, the demand for this research also

Embryonic stem cell research is a highly controversial topic in today's society, this kind of stem cell commits to regenerate any type of tissue. Unfortunately, Embryonic Stem Cell Research has a dark side. To obtain these cells will kill the embryo automatically. In other words, the acquirement of the Human Embryonic Stem Cell includes performing an abortion. To obtain these cells, it would kill the embryo. This has created controversy since abortion is such a divisive topic. Politicians are uneasy to take sides. The Human Embryonic Stem Cell issue is today's Pandora's Box due to all the unwittingly chaos that it can bring to our lives. By having this new option available in the medical world,

Stem Cell Research is the future of scientific research, but it needs to be clarified more with the masses. Many think that Stem Cell Research is unethical and immoral. People also believe that Stem Cell Research is only done on embryos. Stem Cell Research could bring forth a world with fewer worries of disease and disablement.