Sunday, March 8th, 2009 Embryonic stem cells; are they the solution to many diseases plaguing the human race, or are they a vehicle for more pain and suffering? Embryonic stem cells are unspecialized cells derived from the inner cell mass of human embryos that are able to self-renew without differentiating for extended periods of time. This means that they do not become a certain type of cell, that they are totipotent, or capable of giving rise to any of the cell types of the human body. Embryonic stem cells hold the potential to cure diseases such as diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, heart disease, cancer, and even spinal cord injuries, along with hundreds of other rare immune system and genetic disorders. There are many moral and ethical dilemmas surrounding the research and utilization of embryonic stem cells and stem cell therapy, which has made it a difficult decision on whether or not to sign an executive order to lift the ban of federal funding for additional stem cell research, put in place by former president George W. Bush in 2001. With the signing of this order, it will bring the much needed change that scientists and researchers, doctors and innovators, patients and loved ones alike have been waiting for. We should zealously support any scientist who pursues this type of research, as there are many promising results in this field. “At this moment, the full promise of stem cell research remains unknown, and it should not be overstated, but scientists believe these tiny cells may have the potential to help us understand, and possibly cure, some of our most devastating diseases and conditions" (Childs and Stark 1). Scientists have the possibility to more effectively treat and even cure many diseases; and ultimately have the greatest potential to alleviate suffering in the human population since the advent of antibiotics. Stem cell research, should in fact, be funded federally, and regulated by the federal government and the National Institutes of Health, to further prevent any controversy and to insure that the United States of America is handling this both responsibly and ethically.

Most of the ethical controversy surrounding the use of embryonic stem cells can be summed up using one question: When does life begin? In order for researchers and scientists to obtain reliable stem cells, they either have to use an embryo that has already been conceived or therapeutically cloned using a cell from a patient’s body and a donated egg. Although the resulting embryo could contain as little as four cells, some religions say that destroying an embryo for stem cells, is the equivalent to" taking a human life, in essence, murder. “In recent years, when it comes to stem cell research, rather than furthering discovery, our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values. In this case, I believe the two are not inconsistent. As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for each other and work to ease human suffering. I believe we have been given the capacity and will to pursue this research -- and the humanity and conscience to do so responsibly" (“Obama overturns Bush policy”).

One important aspect of embryonic stem cell research is that it has the potential to treat and cure very serious diseases that affect the human race. The first step to take in using embryonic stem cells in the treatment of diseases is to establish stem cell lines. Then, certain genes within the stem cells can be “turned on” so that the stem cell can differentiate into a specialized cell. Scientists have not yet been able to do this, which is one reason why the active continuation of this area of research is highly important, which will be made possible with the signing of the executive order. Once the artificial differentiation of embryonic stem cells is achieved, a myriad of possibilities will unfold. Certain areas of research, such as drug testing, could become much more efficient through the use of embryonic stem cells. For example, say someone wants to test a drug to treat heart disease. “Currently, new drugs must be tested on animals. The data from animal research must be interpreted and then extrapolated to humans prior to human clinical trials. But suppose you could test them directly on human heart cells.” (Watson and Freudenrich 6). A human stem cell line would be grown, and chemically “encouraged” to differentiate into human heart cells in a petri dish. “The potential drugs could be tested on those cells and the data would be directly applicable to humans. This use could save vast amounts of time and money in bringing new drugs to market” (Watson and Freudenrich 6).

Taking into account both moral/ethical dilemmas and scientific arguments, it seems that the signing of an executive order to lift the ban on federal funding for further stem cell research is beneficial to the country, with all the possibilities for curing diseases that have caused great pain and suffering to the American population. While there is the controversy over whether or not the removal from stem cells from an embryo is considered to be taking a human life, I believe that the potential that the embryonic stem cells hold greatly outweigh the possible complications that they themselves has not yet been proven. America should care for one another and work to alleviate suffering for fellow humans. We have been giving the knowledge and means to pursue this research, and it should be used accordingly. And with this, I shall sign the executive order tomorrow. I feel it will greatly benefit the country now, and for years to come.

Works Cited

Childs, Dan, and Lisa Stark. "Obama Reverses Course, Lifts Stem Cell Ban." ABC News. ABC, 9 Mar. 2009. Web. 3 Mar. 2013. .

"Obama overturns Bush policy on stem cells." CNNPolitics.com. CNN, 9 Mar. 2009. Web. 3 Mar. 2013. . "Pro Stem Cell Research." Mibba Creative Writing. N.p., n.d. Web. 3 Mar. 2013. .

Watson, Stephanie, and Craig Freudenrich, Ph.D. "How Stem Cells Work." Howstuffworks. N.p., n.d. Web. 3 Mar. 2013. .