Embryonic Stem Cell Research Almost everyone in the world knows someone who has suffered because of disease. All people whose lives have been devastated by disease have asked or hoped for a cure. What everyone should know is that a cure is possible, but some beliefs are stopping cures from being found. Embryonic stem cell research could provide solutions to medical illnesses that scientists and doctors have been searching for for years. However, certain belief systems argue that an embryo is a person, and destroying an embryo for research is murder. The essential question concerning stem cell research is summed up by this quote from President Bush, “"As I thought through this issue I kept returning to two fundamental questions," Bush stated in an address to the nation. "First, are these frozen embryos human life and therefore something precious to be protected? And second, if they're going to be destroyed anyway, shouldn't they be used for a greater good, for research that has the potential to save and improve other lives?"” (Update: Stem Cell Research). Embryonic stem cell research is a valid, ethical form of medical research that the United States should fund because it has the potential to cure many diseases, an embryo is not equivalent to a human being, the embryos used will be destroyed even without the research, and the United States will fall behind other nations in biomedical research progress. There are many medical problems that can be solved through stem cell research. The medical troubles that the research has potential to cure include, “heart disease, diabetes, cancer, strokes, breast cancer, arthritis, kidney disease, anemia, leukemia, deafness, burn, spinal cord injuries, limb amputations and neurological disorders such as Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's and multiple sclerosis” (Update: Stem Cell Research). It is unbelievable how many could be saved if cures for these diseases were discovered. There are very few people in this world that are not affected by one of these medical illnesses, whether directly or through loved ones. Finding solutions to these medical problems could change so many lives for the better. An example of what doctors and scientists could do is “generate healthy heart muscle cells in the laboratory and then transplant those cells into patients with chronic heart disease” in order to cure them (Stem Cell Basics). The process that doctors and scientists could perform after breakthroughs in the research is as follows: reproduce and generate adequate quantities of cells and differentiate each one into the desired cell types to be transplanted then make sure that the cells “survive in the recipient after transplant, integrate into the surrounding tissue after transplant and function appropriately for the duration of the recipient's life while avoiding harming the recipient in any way” (Stem Cell Basics). This could be amazing technology that would change medicine forever. Stem cell research can even be used to test drugs (Stem Cell Basics). Embryonic stem cell research has the potential to significantly improve the world. Embryonic stem cell research has to destroy a human embryo for it to be used and some people think that an embryo is “morally equivalent to a human being”; therefore they are against the research (Sandel). However, the embryos used are only about three to five days along after fertilization of the egg in the stage called a blastocyst, and they are about 150 cells in a dish that cannot be seen without a microscope (Monroe). This is not what a human being is; an embryo is not a living, breathing person with thoughts and memories and emotions. An embryo cannot form into a human on its own, it needs to be in a uterus, and the embryos that would be used in research are not (Clemmitt). This next comparison explains perfectly what an embryo is and why it can be used; “‘an embryo in a dish is more like a set of instructions or blueprint for a house,” said Arthur Caplan, professor of medical ethics at the University of Pennsylvania. “It can't build the house. For the cells to develop into a human being requires an interactive process in the uterus between the embryo and the mother’” (Clemmitt). Technically an embryo would never become a person because it does not have the support of the female body. Even though embryonic stem cell research ruins an embryo, an embryo is not a human, so it is not murder. Michael Sandel made a great assessment between an oak tree and an acorn that gives excellent reasoning for why embryos can be used in stem cell research; “consider an analogy: although every oak tree was once an acorn, it does not follow that acorns are oak trees, or that I should treat the loss of an acorn eaten by a squirrel in my front yard as the same kind of loss as the death of an oak tree felled by a storm. Despite their developmental continuity, acorns and oak trees differ. So do human embryos and human beings, and in the same way. Just as acorns are potential oaks, human embryos are potential human beings” (Sandel). This analogy perfectly sums up why embryos should be used for research, and why using them is not something to be concerned about. Embryos used for embryonic stem cell research should not be thought of as equivalent to a full grown human. In embryonic stem cell research, the embryos that are used for research are most likely never to be used to form a child. The embryos are made for fertility clinics to put into women, but not all embryos made are used (National Research...). According to Time Magazine, “fertility clinics destroy far more human embryos than stem-cell research ever would, yet they are not controversial. Death or deep freeze is the fate of any embryo spared.” (Kinsley). Fertility clinics make a few embryos in a lab and “transfer two or three” because it is unlikely that all be born, often none make it to birth. In doing this, clinics are creating many embryos that they know are going to die (Kinsley). Most people do not understand why stem cell research is so controversial, when fertility clinics know that what they are doing is probably going to kill a possible human being, and they are not considered controversial. So why not use embryos that will just be frozen and then destroyed for research that could save the lives of those who are already living? This next startling statistic is very important to know when discussing embryonic stem cell research, “according to California's Rand Corporation, 400,000 frozen blastocysts have been stored since the late 1970s, and the couples who created them are no longer likely to use them” (Clemmitt). Rick Weiss of the San Francisco Chronicle claims, “there is nothing moral about telling women that cells from their microscopic embryos, left over from fertility treatments and already set to be discarded, cannot be donated to researchers for the purpose of understanding diseases and developing cures” (Weiss). It would be a smart idea to use those left over embryos to better the world. In 2001, President Bush announced that a bill had been passed that would allow U.S. funds to be delegated to restricted stem cell research (Duffy). The restrictions that he lead up to included that the research could only be conducted on the 64 existing stem cell lines (Duffy). These embryos had already been destroyed so there was no controversy over the destruction of potential human life for further research. The other restrictions are very specific saying that the embryos used could only be that of the excess produced for reproductive uses (Duffy). In correlation with this, there must be consent from the donors whose zygotes would be used in research and those donors could not be paid off for that permission (Duffy). Only then would funding be granted by the government through application. The legislation strictly prohibited the funding of research involving stem cells harvested from newly destroyed embryos (Duffy). More restrictions for funding covered that no money would be given if the human embryos were created on site or there had been cloning of human embryos in order to gather stem cells (Duffy). This announcement did not criminalize the act of creating embryos to be destroyed but simply limited government funds which would have a significant impact on the practice of creating new embryos. While the United States dwells on the fact that embryonic stem cell research is murder to some people, other countries are moving forward in their research. Many believe “that if the U.S. continues to shun the field of stem-cell research, other countries will still embrace it, and the U.S. will falter in its role as a leader in scientific advancement” (Update: Stem Cell Research). Soon, other countries will be far ahead of the United States in this research process. Many countries are happy about the United States falling behind, for example, Asia has never been at the top of any field in newly advancing biology according to Chunhua Zhao, director of Beijing's National Center for Stem Cell Research. He admits that this could be their chance to surpass the United States in biological research (Clemmitt). Many Americans pride themselves on their country being the best and a leader in this world. This halt in embryonic stem cell research is pulling the States behind other nations. Scientists in the United States are using “old and degenerating” stem cells while competing scientists in other countries are using the best, newest stem cells (Weiss). Soon, other nations will be making major, history making discoveries, while the United States is left in the dust. There are a few scientists researching stem cells, but it is not probable that only a few people or labs will solve the seemingly growing problem of disease (Clemmitt). The United States needs a full force of scientists as well and government funding if they want to find an answer or else they will fall behind many other nations.
Funding for this process would have to be provided by private sectors in support of the research until President Obama’s very recent legislation. As of March 8th, 2010 Obama removed the restrictions Bush had put on stem cell research, which was one of his controversial campaign promises put into action. His administration said they would “vigorously support scientist who pursue this research” and that a portion of tax payer dollars would begin to go towards their funding. Embryonic stem cell research is a controversial subject because it is seen as killing a human. Mostly it is conservative Christians that feel this way. Thomas Shannon says that “over the last few decades there has been a strong affirmation by the pope and bishops that the human embryo is to be valued and, in effect, treated as a person from the entire time of fertilization forward” (Shannon). They say that “ensoulment” happens at when an egg is fertilized and that science should never be conducted when its experimental procedure requires the destruction of “the very lives it should be trying to save” (Shannon). The main argument against stem cell research is that it is destroying a human life; but this is because people have different beliefs on when human life begins. Those against embryonic stem cell research believe that embryos “have the same moral status as adult humans and must not be used in research to which they, obviously, cannot consent” (Clemmitt). However, a lot of people feel and embryo “has no consciousness, no self-awareness, no ability to feel love or pain. The smallest insect is far more human in every respect except potential” (Kinsley). The other argument against the research is that it has not yet yielded any results (Update: Stem Cell Research). But there has not been much federal funding for stem cell research, so unless there is more money put into the research it will be hard to see any progress. Even though embryonic stem cell research could be seen as murder, it clearly is not and should be used towards improving the world. Having serious potential to cure many diseases, the embryos are not yet people and they are going to be destroyed anyway, and falling behind the world in research progress, are all reasons why embryonic stem cell research is ethical and should be used. There is a whole array of diseases it could possibly find an answer to including heart disease, Alzheimer’s, cancer, diabetes, leukemia, Parkinson’s, multiple sclerosis and many others (Update: Stem Cell Research). Although some people think it is unethical to destroy a human embryo for this research, embryos are not human beings. The embryos used are just a cluster of cells in a dish (Kinsley). The embryos left over from fertility clinics, ones that researchers could use, are just going to be destroyed or frozen indefinitely (Kinsley). And while the United States is arguing over ethics, other countries are moving forward in this field, and the United States is being left behind (Update: Stem Cell Research). Embryonic stem cell research is a great thing for this world and could open up so many medical doors. So, should one destroy a few cells in a laboratory and save many lives, or should one save an embryo and watch people with loved ones, families, and lives die?

Works Cited
Clemmitt, Marcia. "Stem Cell Research." CQ Researcher 16.30 (2006): 697-720. CQ Researcher Online. CQ Press. University at Albany Library, Albany, NY. 4 April 2010 <http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/cqresrre2006090100>. This source had it all. From scientific procedures to research statistics to insightful opinions this source was able to thoroughly inform me on all aspects of stem cells.
Duffy, Diane T. "Background and Legal Issues Related to Stem Cell Research." Almanac of Policy Issues. Congressional Research Service, June 2002. Web. 8 May

2010. <http://www.policyalmanac.org/health/archive/crs_stem_cell.shtml>.

This source informed me of the United States policy for stem cell research under

the presidency of George Bush.
Kinsley, Michael. "The False Controversy of Stem Cells." Time Magazine. 4 April 2010. <http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101040531-641157,00.html>. Monroe, Kristen R., Ronald Baker Miller, and Jerome S. Tobis. Fundamentals of the Stem Cell Debate: The Scientific, Religious, Ethical, and Political Issues . Berkeley, California: University of California Press, 2008. Print. National Research Council (U.S.)., and Institute of Medicine (U.S.). Guidelines for

Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research. Washington D.C.: The National

Academies Press, 2005. Print.

"Obama Ends Stem Cell Research Ban." CBS News Politics. N.p., 9 Mar. 2010. Web. 11

May 2010.<http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/09/politics/100days/

domestic issues/main4853385.shtml>. Sandel, Michael J. "Embryo Ethics." The Boston Globe. 2 April 2010 <http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/04/08/embryo_ethics/>. This source gave me my favorite quote on stem cell research, which I think ery well sums up my feels on the matter. The quote relates humans to oak trees and embryos to acorns.
Shannon, Thomas A. "Embryonic Stem Cell Research Is Unethical." BioMedical Ethics.
Ed. Viqi Wagner. Opposing Viewpoints Series. Farmington Hills, MI: Christine
Nasso, 2008. 21-32. Rpt. of "Stem-Cell Research." Catholic Update. Jan. 2002.
<http://www.americancatholic.org>. This source provided me with the opposing view point which clued me in to the other side’s position so that I could make an informed decision on which side I agreed with.
"Stem Cell Basics." Stem Cell Information. 15 Sept. 2008. National Institutes of Health,
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 30 April 2010 <http://stemcells
.nih.gov/info/basics/>. This source gave me a base to start from. I was able to learn the basics first before going to in depth with the research of policies and controversy.
"Update: Stem-Cell Research." Issues & Controversies On File 3 Dec. 2007. Issues &
Controversies. Facts On File News Services. 23 March. 2010 <http://www.
2facts.com>.
Weiss, Rick, and Jonathan Moreno. "New Possibilities For Stem Cell Research." San
Francisco Chronicle 10 Aug. 2008: G-9. SFGate. Ed. Alison Biggar. 2 Jan. 2008.
18 March 2010 <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/08/09
/INDB1269RM.DTL>.