The Big Debate: An analysis of the issue

Stem cell research has become a topic of debate among scientists, politicians and everyday citizens. Having been informed about stem cells and reading numerous articles and information about the matter; I am becoming more educated and aware of different aspects of the issue. Stem cell research has become an issue of ethics and rights, along with technological and scientific development.
The main purpose of stem cell research is to search for cures to such medical ailments and injuries as Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, diabetes, stroke, spinal cord injuries, and bone disease. The ethical issue under question is whether it is right to use embryonic stem cells for research. Although adult stem cells can be used, they propose disadvantages to the range of research and experiments able to be conducted. Adult stem cells are already set in their origin and cannot be manipulated into any sort of cell. For example, if an adult cell is a liver cell, it can not be manipulated into a heart cell. An embryonic stem cell, on the other hand, is able to be developed into any other cell made by the human body. It can be thought of as a “blank” cell. This will allow for possible growth of various cells and a wider range of research and data to be collected. Another advantage of using embryonic stem cells is their ability to divide indefinitely. This allows an unlimited genetically identical number of cells to be produced for medical use. These stem cells serve as a repair system, dividing when needing to replenish other cells. Embryonic stem cells can also be used to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of new medicines.

One question leading to the ethical issue of embryonic research is the personal definition of a stem cell; whether one considers it as a human being life form or not. The previous use of aborted fetuses for stem cell research brought the topic of abortion to the issue. During the presidency of Bill Clinton, the ethics panel on the topic brought up the view that there is no reason to generate an embryo for purposes other than creating a child. Many opponents argue that the creation of human embryos solely for the purpose of medical research is unethical and may lead to cloning. They believe that reproductive cloning would undermine the fundamental concept of humanness. Also, cloning is thought to lead to genetic defects and become ineffective. Every clone is said to have subtle genetic abnormalities and have a low survival rate.

Supporters of stem cell research believe that a fertilized egg is not considered a human being, stating that during fertilization, an egg may be fertilized but fail to implant into the woman’s uterus. Therefore, it has the potential for human life, but can not be considered human until successfully implanted into the uterus. Although opponents of this research feel the research will lead to unethical human cloning, cloning is predicted to be a positive advantage. Creating these cells through cloning rather than the traditional egg and sperm method could, for example, allow a cell of the exact genetic make up to be able to be injected into a Parkinson’s disease patient , eliminating the risk of rejection.

Many counter arguments to stem cell research result from religious and anti-abortion groups stating that embryos are human beings and have the same rights as humans. From the religious view, even Pope Benedict has urged scientist not to use human embryos in stem cell research stating it is violates the dignity of human life.

Funding for this research has also become a major issue. Alfred Tubman donated $1.4 million to a Stem Cell Research group in Michigan to show his support of stem cell research. He has donated over $150 million over his lifetime to the University of Michigan and other research groups in order to aid in funding the research . Tubman is in full support of embryonic stem cell research and feels if embryonic stem cell research had been around he would not had to have seen people die of disease. Funding has developed into a more political battle, especially with the 2008 presidential debate ahead. President Bush recently vetoed, the first veto of his presidency, a bill that would have allowed for federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. He is against using embryonic stem cells for research and believes that using them is destroying human life. If the bill had been passed, it would have authorized federal funds to be used for the research of embryonic stem cells taken from the surplus embryos from in vitro fertilization clinics that would have been discarded otherwise. Most democrats do not agree with Bush's decision, including Hilary Clinton who states if she is elected she will sign an executive order rescinding Bush’s restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. She feels that Bush is conducting a “war on science” and she wants to end it. Clinton is proposing to add billions to fund scientific research in order for Americans to gain vital information in the medical world. It seems as if the issue of stem cell research is becoming more of a political battle among presidential candidates to gain voter support, rather than an issue of true scientific advancement.

A notable fact opponents raise is although stem cell research has been underway for several years now, it has yet to produce a single cure. However, a supporter of this research would note the fact that a great deal of information and data has been collected from the research which is able to point scientists in the right direction of finding cures. Also, there have been successful attempts with the use of animals which can lead to the conclusion human success will be next. The research process is continuous and if scientists are not allowed to continue with their research, there will be no hope of one day finding cures.