Over the past 30 years there has been debate over Stem Cell Research. In November of 1998 when researchers first reported the isolation of human embryonic stem cells. The discovery, made by Dr. James A. Thomson, a biologist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, offered great promise for new ways of treating disease. With this great discovery much debate came over stem cell research. Even though Dr. Thomson research was extraordinary this topic has been in debate for over thirty-years. During this time the legislation had been revised to in compass new advancement in the research along with protect the public interest. The question that is continually being evaluated is the use of stem cell ethical.

In 1973, Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade rules that decisions about abortion are private, between a woman and her doctor. Some States may not forbid abortion in first two trimesters. This decision sparks a large, politically active anti-abortion movement that opposes research on embryos. Members of Congress become concerned about research exploitation of embryos and fetuses that will be aborted. (Wertz, 2002)
In 1974,Congress applies its own temporary moratorium on federally funded clinical research on embryos and embryonic tissue, including research on IVF, infertility, and prenatal diagnosis, until national guidelines can be established. A de facto moratorium continues until the present. Basic, non-therapeutic, research using embryonic cells continues, out of public view. Congress establishes National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The National Commission’s first mandate is ethical guidelines for fetal and embryo research (Wertz, 2002). The National Commission’s specifies that societal protection of human subjects should be extended to embryos and fetuses, even in the context of abortion, and recommends establishment of a national Ethics Advisory Board (EAB) to review (Wertz, 2002)
In 1990, Congress voted to override the moratorium on government funding of embryonic stem cell research, which was vetoed by President George Bush. President Clinton lifted the ban, but changed his mind the following year after public outcry against the lift of the ban (Wertz, 2002). Congress banned federal funding in 1995. Congress attached the ban to the bill appropriating funds for NIH. (Wertz, 2002) It has been retained in each successive appropriations bill
—None of the funds made available in this Act may be used for—
(1) The creation of a human embryo or embryos for research purposes; or
(2) Research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death greater than that allowed for research on fetuses in utero under 45 CFR 46.2048(a)(2) and 42 U.S.C. 289g(b) (Obama, 2009).

—For purposes of this section, the phrase 'human embryo or embryos' shall include any organism, not protected as a human subject under 45 CFR 46 as of the date of the enactment of this Act, that is derived by fertilization, parthenogenesis, cloning, or any other means from one or more human gametes (Obama, 2009).
Because of the great potential promised by Dr. Thomson's discovery, NIH sought legal counsel from the Department of Health and Human Services on the application of the ban to Human Stem Cell research. In January 1999, HHS concluded that scientists could use public funds for research on Human Stem Cells as long as derivation of the cells—which results in the destruction of an embryo—was carried out with private funds. NIH thus began drafting guidelines governing funding for Human Stem Cell studies.

In 2000, President Bill Clinton allowed funding of research on cells derived from aborted human fetuses, but not from embryonic cells. On August 9, 2001, President George W. Bush announced his decision to allow Federal funding of research only on existing human embryonic stem cell lines created prior to his announcement in 2001 (Unknown, Genetics & Public Policy Center, 2010). His concern was to not foster the continued destruction of living human embryos. In 2004, both houses of Congress have asked President George W. Bush to review his policy on embryonic stem cell research. President George W. Bush released a statement reiterating his moral qualms about creating human embryos to destroy them, and refused to reverse the federal policy banning government funding of Stem Cell research (Clinton, 2007). 70 different human embryonic stem cell lines are eligible for use in federally funded research, only about nine or so are of immediate use to scientists (Wertz, 2002). In the November 2004 election, California had a Stem Cell Research Funding authorization initiative on the ballot that won by a 60% to 40% margin. It established the "California Institute for Regenerative Medicine" to regulate stem cell research and research facilities. It authorizes issuance of general obligation bonds to finance institute activities up to $3 billion dollars subject to an annual limit of $350 million. (Unknown, 2011)
In the United States there is no federal legislation prohibiting cloning for both reproductive and therapeutic purposes. As many of the United States counterparts that have place severe restriction on the use of Embryonic Stem Cell research. Currently in the Australia bans all human cloning whether for reproduction or research. This includes a ban on embryo splitting and other techniques that might create a clone without fertilization. Australia does allow the use of embryos remaining after assisted reproduction, as long as those embryos were created before April 5, 2002. (Garfinkel, 2004) Currently in the United Kingdom, Embryo research is regulated by both the Human Fertilization and Embryology Act 1990, which makes general provisions in connection with embryo research, and the Human Reproductive Cloning Act 2001, which bans human reproductive cloning by and renders it a criminal offense. Article 1 of this Act considers an offender “a person who places in a woman a human embryo which has been created otherwise than by fertilization.” 

Under the Human Fertilization and Embryology Act 1990, an embryo is defined as “a live human embryo where fertilization is complete.” This definition includes reference to “an egg in the process of fertilization,” where fertilization is not complete until the appearance of a two-cell zygote. This Act prohibits the creation or use of an embryo without a license issued by the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority. A license may be issued for research involving the creation or use of human embryos for the purpose of: 
(1) promoting advances in the treatment of infertility; 
(2) increasing knowledge about the causes of congenital disease; 
(3) increasing knowledge about the causes of miscarriage; 
(4) developing more effective contraceptive techniques; 
(5) developing methods for detecting genetic or chromosomal abnormalities in pre-implantation embryos. 

In January 2001, regulations were made which extended the purposes for which embryo research could be licensed. These purposes include: 
• increasing knowledge about the development of embryos; 
• increasing knowledge about serious disease; 
• enabling such knowledge to be applied in developing treatments for serious disease. 
 (Unknown, Genetics & Public Policy Center, 2010)

The Canadians Act Respecting Assisted Human Reproduction and Related Research defines an embryo as "a human organism during the first 56 days of its development following fertilization or creation and includes any cell derived from such an organism that is used for the purpose of creating a human being." The Act prohibits the creation of embryos for research. 

Concerning the issue of cloning, the Act prohibits anyone from offering or advertising the following activities: 

(a) creation of a human clone using any technique, or transplantation of a human clone into a human being or into any non-human life form or artificial device; 
(b) creation of an in vitro embryo for any purpose other than creating a human being or improving or providing instruction in assisted reproduction procedures; 
(c) for the purpose of creating a human being, creation of an embryo from a cell or part of a cell taken from an embryo or fetus or transplantation of an embryo so created into a human being. (Unknown, Genetics & Public Policy Center, 2010)

The Human Reproductive Technology Ordinance enacted by the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, though not yet in operation, regulates the creation, use and manipulation of an embryo, whether or not the embryo is to be implanted into the body of a woman. The guidelines state that human embryonic stem cells used for research be derived only from “spared (sic) gamete or blastula after IVF,” “fetal cells after natural or voluntarily selective abortion,” “blastula or monosexual split blastula by somatic cell nucleus transfer technique,” and “germ cells voluntarily donated” (art. 5). The Guidelines on Assisted Reproductive Technologies for Human Beings adopted by the Ministry of Health also ban reproductive cloning explicitly. (Unknown, Genetics & Public Policy Center, 2010)

Under the Bioethics Law in France it is prohibited to create embryos for research purposes or for the creation of stem cells. Therapeutic cloning is thus prohibited while reproductive cloning is considered a “crime against the human race.” Both procedures are criminalized under the law, but there is discussion in France of reconsidering the prohibition on therapeutic cloning. the committee declares that the human embryo must, as soon as it is formed, receive the respect owed to its status. The creation of embryos solely for the purpose of research is thus prohibited, with the exception in the context of evaluation of new medically assisted reproductive techniques. (Unknown, Genetics & Public Policy Center, 2010)

The Federal Constitution of Switzerland, at article 119, protects persons against abuse related to assisted procreation and gene technology. This article stipulates that the Swiss Constitution will ensure “the protection of human dignity, of personality, and of family, and in particular it shall respect [that]…all forms of cloning and interference with genetic material of human reproductive cells and embryos is prohibited.” 

The Embryonic Research Act also prohibits cloning and other practices related to embryo research at article 3. According to this article, it is forbidden to produce an embryo for research purposes, create a clone, produce embryonic stem cells from a clone, or to import or export cloned embryos. The goal of the Act is “to prevent all abusive uses of excess embryos and of embryonic stem cells and to protect human dignity” (art. 1). The forbidden practices are sanctioned with imprisonment (art. 24). 

The Act prohibits the creation of embryos for research purposes and the production and use of stem cells from such embryos. The procurement of embryonic stem cells from a clone is also forbidden. 

(Unknown, Genetics & Public Policy Center, 2010)

During the election in 2008 then Democratic Sen. Barack Obama stated has the as the 44th U.S. President Obama pledged to overturn the Bush policy and thus expand the number of human embryonic stem cell lines eligible for federally funded research. On March 9, he did so through an executive order. The order did not specify ethical guidelines but rather allowed 120 days for the development of such guidelines by the secretary of Health and Human Services through the director of the National Institutes of Health. (Unknown, AAAS, 2011)
Section 1. Policy. Research involving human embryonic stem cells and human non-embryonic stem cells has the potential to lead to better understanding and treatment of many disabling diseases and conditions. Advances over the past decade in this promising scientific field have been encouraging, leading to broad agreement in the scientific community that the research should be supported by Federal funds. (Obama, 2009)
On April 23, 2009, National Institutes of Health published draft guidelines allowing funding for research on stem cells derived from donated embryos leftover from fertility treatments, provided that certain conditions are met, such as the voluntary informed consent of donors. National Institutes of Health would continue to fund research on adult stem cells and induced plurpotent stem cells, which are adult cells that have been directed by scientists to take on properties of embryonic stem cells. However, it would not fund research on embryos created specifically for research or on stem cells derived by research cloning techniques or by parthenogenesis (a method that uses unfertilized egg cells). (Unknown, AAAS, 2011).
On August 23, 2010, U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth issued a preliminary injunction barring National Institutes of Health from funding human embryonic stem cell research. The injunction was in response to a lawsuit involving two scientists, James L. Sherley of the Boston Biomedical Research Institute and Theresa Deisher of AVM Biotechnology in Seattle, who argued that the funding of embryonic stem cell research would cause them "irreparable injury" by increasing competition and therefore potentially taking funds away from adult stem cell research, their area of work. Judge Lamberth agreed. The judge also ruled that federally funded embryonic stem cell research was illegal under the Dickey-Wicker Amendment and that it is not possible to disentangle embryonic stem cell research from the derivation of the stem cells, even if the cells are derived using private funds (Unknown, AAAS, 2011). A U.S. Appeals Court subsequently ruled that Sherley and Deisher, but not the other plaintiffs, did have standing to file suit and sent the case back to Lamberth for consideration (Unknown, AAAS, 2011). The U.S. Justice Department quickly moved to appeal the injunction. Meanwhile, National Institutes of Health was forced to shut down its intramural human embryonic stem cell experiments and halt any grants or renewals that had not yet been paid out. Congress quickly mobilized to ponder legislative strategies for doing away with the injunction, perhaps by overturning or clarifying the language of the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, but acknowledged the need to factor in the midterm elections just two months away (Unknown, AAAS, 2011). On September 9, the U.S. Appeals Court for the D.C. Circuit granted the government's request to stay the injunction temporarily until the court could hear oral arguments regarding the injunction. On July 27, Lamberth ruled on the underlying case, and to the surprise of many observers decided in favor of the Obama policy, dismissing the lawsuit. (Unknown, AAAS, 2011)

Opponents of Human Stem Cell research hold that human life begins as soon as an egg is fertilized, and they consider a human embryo to be a human being. They therefore consider any research that necessitates the destruction of a human embryo to be morally abhorrent. Proponents of Human Stem Cell research, meanwhile, point out that in the natural reproductive process, human eggs are often fertilized but fail to implant in the uterus. A fertilized egg, they argue, while it may have the potential for human life, cannot be considered equivalent to a human being until it has at least been successfully implanted in a woman's uterus.
Current legislation limits the research of human stem cell research, which could potential save the lives of millions of Americans. The legislation should expand to include the use of human embryos created by In vitro fertilization. Currently these clinics routinely create more human embryos than are needed over the course of a fertility treatment, and are therefore left with excess embryos that are often simply discarded. The use of this method is morally permissible to use such embryos for potentially life-saving biomedical research. According to a special committee established by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), 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."

Works Cited
Clinton, B. (2007 йил 06). Expanding Approved Stem Cell Lines in Ethically Responsible Ways-Executive Order 13435. 72 (120).

Garfinkel, M. (2004). GNN. Retrieved 2012 йил 02 from Genome News Network: http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/resources/policiesandplayers/

Obama, B. (2009 йил 03). xecutive Order 13505. Removing Barriers to Responsible
Scientific Research Involving Human Stem Cells , 74 (46), p. 4.

Unknown. (2011 йил 12-08). AAAS. Retrieved 2012 йил 11-02 from AAAS: http://www.aaas.org/spp/cstc/briefs/stemcells/

Unknown. (2010). Genetics & Public Policy Center. Retrieved 2012 йил 02 from
Policy and Public Opinion: http://www.dnapolicy.org/policy.international.php?action=detail&laws_id=12

Wertz, D. C. (2002 йил 06). Gene Therapy. Retrieved 2012 йил 02 from Nature: http://www.nature.com/gt/journal/v9/n11/full/3301744a.html