Sociology

A heated debated has taken place within educational, religious, and legal realms. The controversy involves stem cell research, particularly testing of human embryos. Embryo stem cells are undifferentiated cells that have not yet formed into any specific type of tissue. Some scientists believe that with the proper procedure, these cells can be manipulated into becoming any tissue in the body, thereby holding a promising treatment of many diseases and conditions. But where do the researchers get the embryo cells used for their research Some are taken from the labs of in-vitro clinics, others are taken from miscarried embryos, and the remaining are taken from aborted embryos, with the consent of the parent (Stem cell research, 2010). Opponents say stem cell research crosses a dangerousand unnecessaryline between man and Maker. Battle lines have been clearly drawn as our lawmakers debate whether to fund this controversial research. In this debate, three fundamental questions must be considered Can stem cell research live up to the hype Do better alternatives exist And, finally, When does life begin When all of these factors are considered, one conclusion is clear embryonic stem cell research is a viable and promising medical treatment, and therefore worthy of federal funding.

Thesis
Stem cell research holds the promise of hope for 100 million people living with incurable diseases from diabetes to heart conditions to Alzheimers to Parkinsons, ALS, MS, and spinal cord injury. It will affect the entire American family.Christopher Reeve
(Stem cell research, 2010)

Since their discovery in 1998, embryonic stem cells have been promoted as a potential
miracle worker for the medical world. The National Institutes of Health stated that stem cell
research promises news treatments and possible cures for a wide array of diseases and
conditions (NIH, 2010). When former President Bushs restrictions on federally funded stem cell
research were implemented in 2001, many more scientists, doctors, and ordinary citizens
united in their promotion of and belief in these tiny cells. The Coalition for the Advancement of
Medical Research has even estimated that over 100 million American patients could possibly
benefit from new treatments arising from the research (Price, 2005).   

Why are all of these individuals so excited Embryonic stem cells hold the unique
potential for developing into any type of cell in the human body. Since embryonic cells are
undifferentiated, scientists believe that they can manipulate the cells into becoming brain
cells, heart cells, bone cells, or numerous other options. The implications of this possibility
for the medical world are enormous. If a patient has damaged heart tissue, stem cells could be
used to create the healthy beating cells of heart tissue (Brehm, Strauer,  Schannwell, 2009). If a
person suffers from severe burns, stem cell therapy could be used rather than painful and
unpredictable grafting procedures. If an individual is afflicted with a spinal cord injury, stem
cells (by being developed into nerve cells) may one day allow that person to walk again
(Vierbuchen, Ostermeier, Pang, Sdhof,  Wernig, 2010). These are just a few of the
possibilities. In 1998, representatives of conditions ranging from infertility to AIDS drafted a
letter urging the federal government to support stem cell research (Bongso  Lee, 2005). 

Potential progress does not end with regenerative medicine. The medical community is
also hopeful about the basic research information stem cells may provide them. For starters, stem
cells are a safer option for testing new drugs than human subjects. Their amazing replication and
differentiation capacities make them an ideal testing ground for any number of treatments.

Perhaps more importantly, cell development is a crucial link in understanding complex
conditions such as birth defects and cancer. If stem cells afford scientists a better understanding
of normal cell development, then by extension they will also gain insight into the causes of
abnormal cell development culprits behind many defects and cancers (American Association for
the Advancement of Science and Institute for Civil Society, 2009). Through that insight,
treatments can become more targeted and efficient. One day, stem cells may even hold the key to
that magic word known as cure.   

What could be more pro-life than working for a cure for a loved one--Representative James Langevin (Bongso  Lee, 2005) We have discussed some of the medical reasons for supporting and funding embryonic stem cell research, but let us now speak to the heart of the matter. The one question that truly drives this debate is not about facts and statistics, but it is about the same fundamental question
which fuels the abortion debate  pro-life or pro-choice We live in a society that prides
itself on progress and choice. Neither aim was ever achieved easily. With change will always
come resistance. With options will always come argument.  It is simply the way things are and
always will be. But we should never let the resistance or the argument stand in the way of those
two principles.those two very crucial principles which are the foundation of stem cell research
and of our culture.

Anti-thesis
Federal funding of stem cell research would create profound medical and moral
quandaries. Consider, for example, the researchs viability. While the aims of stem cell research
proponents are admirable, how much do they really know about this promising cure-all If stem
cell research really holds all of the answers that its defenders claim, then our global healthcare
system may have discovered a talisman of unprecedented proportions. However, evidence from
some of the fields leading scientists suggests that stem cell research may be nothing more than
this generations snake oil.  Lord Winston, one of the leading pioneers of embryonic stem cell
research in Europe, said I view the current wave of optimism about embryonic stem cells with
growing suspicion (Morris, 2005). So, while defenders of embryonic stem cell research truly
believe in the cells potential to be the next Penicillin, researchers are highlighting two key
problems with stem cell research  over-exaggerated claims concerning its current usefulness and
unrealistic expectations for its future usefulness. 

Foremost, current research has revealed some critical problems in using embryonic stem
cells for therapeutic purposes. Experiments have shown a strong capacity for the cells to
develop unpredictable tumors and unusual growths within subjects (some animals have even
grown hair and bone inside their brain tissue). (American Association, 2009)  Further, embryonic
cells are very difficult for scientists to work with. Scientists in other countries, where federal
research is granted, have acknowledged as much (National Institutes of Health, 2010). How
many applicable treatments have their federally funded research produced in twenty-plus years
The answer is zero (Morris, 2005). Further, with the cells unpredictability, developing
functional lines could very well take the three to five decades that cloning expert Curie Ahn
suggested.  As one quadriplegic worried, I fear many of us are being sold an imaginary garment
of hope  an elusive belief that embryonic stem cells will cure us (Egendorf, 2002).

Many advocates promote embryonic stem cell research out of a mistaken belief that is
the only solution. It is somewhat similar to the mentality that human cloning is the one and
only future of organ transplants. Yet scientific evidence increasingly suggests that better
solutions do indeed exist. Adult stem cell applications have already demonstrated their
capabilities in over sixty medical conditions  heart attacks, spinal cord injury, juvenile diabetes,
various types of cancers, and many more conditions. Previous claims that adult stem cells are
useless in duplicating various types of bodily cells are being disputed by the day.  Cells extracted
from cadavers, bone marrow, and even human skin have shown remarkable generative capacity
(Machalinski, Ratajczak.,  Wojakowski,2007)  For example, a research team at the University
of Minnesota has discovered bone marrow stem cells (MAPCs) which may be able to transform
into any tissue type found in the human body (NIH, 2010). 

As for the argument that embryos in fertility clinics (where a majority of the
embryos come from) will be discarded, clinics are offering an increasingly viable alternative
which actually helps childless couples embryo adoption. In such cases, fertilized embryos are
implanted in a mother who cannot otherwise conceive (Stem cell research, 2010).             
Medical concerns aside, what about valid ethical concerns relating to stem cell research
Advocates do not believe that they are taking a life. They will say that embryos are not human
beings and therefore they have no rights (Adewumi., Aflatoonian,  Ahrlund-Richter, 2007).

But embryos have DNA. In fact, the embryo has a complete genome. As doctors from the
renowned Mayo clinic confirm the human embryo is a living human organism. Structurally, the
embryo is genetically complete (Morris, 2005). They have all of the capabilities to grow and mature
into a human fetus. Is a human not a human when it contains the building blocks of humanity,
DNA  Does that fulfillment not occur at conception Is an embryo a person Yes. Should the
government sanction killing one person to save another  The answer is no. 

Synthesis
Many critics of stem cell research argue that no significant medical treatments have
resulted from current embryonic research. Numerous success stories speak to the falsity of that
belief. In one study, researchers were able to significantly ease the symptoms of a subject with
Parkinsons disease. The scientists successfully manipulated the embryonic stem cells into a
specific type of neuron needed to treat the disease (Fricker-Gates  Gates, 2010). Also, clinic
researchers working with human embryonic stem cells made a potentially revolutionary
breakthrough for the estimated 23 million American citizens suffering from heart disease. They
turned embryonic stem cells into cardiac cells, and then placed them in a damaged heart. After a
long period of post-evaluation, the researchers confirmed that the cells were not only accepted by
their new home, but that they rapidly improved the condition of the heart itself (Resnick, 2004).

Stem cell research has already made amazing advancements in just a few years, and governments
from Singapore to England show support through federal funding. The progress that could be
made in America with time and fewer restrictions cannot be estimated. Many concerns, such as
potential tumorous growths, could be more properly investigated (Adewumi, Aflatoonian, 
Ahrlund-Richter, 2007). Dr. Jeffrey Drazen elaborates on the importance of time 
Without federal funding for stem-cell researchexperimentscould take years to completeand would probably be conducted outside the United States. If we fail to bring the necessary research technology into the mainstream now, our children and grandchildren may need to leave the United States to benefit (2005).

Medical breakthroughs are always tantalizing, but what about the very real concerns of
those with moral objections to embryonic research Opponents of stem cell research believe life
begins when an egg is fertilized. Since the majority of embryonic stem cells derive from
discarded embryos created by fertility clinics, opponents argue that using these embryos for
research is in essence killing them (American Association, 2009). However, advocates argue
just as strongly that they are working to save lives, not take them. Advocates will say that
embryos are not human beings and therefore they have no legal rights. They cannot see, feel, or
think. They are undifferentiated cells. These cells have no organs and no capacity for awareness
(Stem cell research, 2010). Many religious groups even seem to hold this position and have few
qualms with stem cell research, including many Muslim and Jewish denominations (Egendorf,
2002).

In addition, most if not all of the embryos used by fertility clinics will be either
intentionally or unintentionally destroyed. One survey revealed that upwards of fifty percent of
unused embryos are immediately discarded with the consent of the donor (Stem cell research,
2010). Why not use these trashcan-doomed samples to actually save lives A fertility procedure
typically results in two dozen fertilized eggs. Of these two dozen, only three or four are
implanted in the patient. An estimated 100,000 to 400,000 unused embryos currently lie in
storage. Some say that these embryos should be put up for adoption, yet estimates say that only
about a dozen such adoptions take place every year. Either the donors are reluctant to have an
unknown biological child somewhere in the world, or couples desiring a child are reluctant to use
the lower quality embryos that are frozen.  The majority of these embryos will end up destroyed
(Bongso  Lee, 2005).

As for the argument that embryos and stem cells are human life, no one will ever agree
on this issue. The debate will continue. But while the argument continues, millions of people
with very real and very un-debatable lives are suffering and dying every day. The courts have
already answered this question for the government by legalizing abortion. According to the laws
of this land, life begins at birth.  So why would the government set a double standard when it
comes to stem cell research The current administration agrees. Shortly after his inauguration
and in one of his first major actsPresident Obama issued an executive order banishing the
restrictions of federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, stating these tiny cells may
have the potential to help us understand, and possibly cure, some of our most devastating
diseases (Wilson, 2009). 

However, a true synthesis involves combination compromise. And perhaps in the
highly contentious embryonic stem cell debate, compromise is possible. Adult stem cell research
has its problems stillthe current capacity to only develop into a few types of cells in the human
body, slower growth, and more difficult extractionbut should stand alongside embryonic stem
cell research as a valid research funding priority (American Association, 2009). Possibilities
also lie with cord blood cells taken from a placenta after birth. These cells, which are much
more common and less ethically questionable than embryonic cells, already have many
advocates and success stories to their name. A University of Pittsburgh research team hails these
cells abilities to produce different types of tissues. Likewise, Wake Forest University scientists
have uncovered potentially malleable stem cells in amniotic fluid. Further, recent breakthrough
claims have heralded the harvesting of embryonic stem cells without destroying the embryo and
possible early advances toward creating embryo-like stem cells from skin cells (Winslow,
2009). All things considered, the scientific community needs funding to explore these and all
viable stem cell options stem cell therapy could very well be the vital first step towards true
health care reform.     

Ideally, core values would be basic and indisputable. However, as history has proven
time and again, no ideal is simple. No value is attained without question.We do not live in a
world of absolutes, but in a society of gray.Every day, the very definitions of our central value
system are challenged and debated. Every day, we must struggle with difficult questionsWhat
is lifeWho deserves libertyCan we measure the happiness of some against the heartache of
others Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness these principles represent the foundation of
our country a foundation that needs strong support to sustain itself, whether than support be
emotional, intellectual, financial, or political. Will stem cell research fulfill and enhance our
countrys core values This questions remains unanswered Can stem cell research fulfill and
enhance our countrys core values For this question, scientists and medical professionals alike
have answered with a promising and resounding Yes, it can. Our country was built on promise
and potential, so should our government and our people invest in stem cell research In the
words of our President Yes, we canYes, we should.