FREE ESSAY ON SHOULD STEM-CELL RESEARCH BE BANNED?

SHOULD STEM-CELL RESEARCH BE BANNED?

Should Embryo Stem Cell Research Be Banned?
This is one of the most controversial questions posed in the last century. The issue is
simple. Should the federal government fund embryo stem cell research? The answer is
extremely complex. At the heart of this controversy, is whether or not, it is morally
ethical to use stem cells derived from human embryos to possibly discover the cure and
treatment for many diseases such as Diabetes, Stroke, Cancer, Parkinson's disease, and
Alzheimer's, to name just a few. 
"The discovery of human pluripotent stem cells, the most basic building blocks of the
human body, is a major scientific breakthrough, the full value of which cannot be
overstated," said Nobel Laureate Paul Berg, Ph.D., in a recent press release on behalf of
the American Society for Cell Biology (2). Since they were first isolated in 1998, stem
cells have shown the potential to dramatically change medical research and therapies (2).

Embryonic stem cells are the very early cells that still have the potential to evolve
into any type of tissue or organ. In the laboratory they can be coaxed into becoming
brain cells, muscle cells, nerve cells, blood cells, etc., according to Christine Morris
in an article written for the Miami Herald, researchers are working on the way to make
the cells grow into the type of cell they need, then infuse them into diseased organs to
fix a problem (1).
Two of the world's most important ethical commitments are placed at odds with the
discovery of stem cells; the commitment to protect human life, and the commitment to
curing diseases.
The opposition to this research comes from Anti-abortion groups, the National Conference
of Catholic Bishops, The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity and seventy U.S.
Congressmen among others. Their position is that it is wrong to permit research that
requires the destruction of human embryos to obtain their stem cells. The crux of their
beliefs is human life begins at conception. To them, this research is on the same level
as the experiments that were perpetrated by the Nazi's in World War II. A press release
from Do No Harm: The Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics says, "this research
requires the deliberate destruction of human beings in order to obtain the raw materials
for research " (1). They assert the research is not only ethically and morally wrong, but
it is illegal as well. The current congressional ban on federally funded research
prohibits "research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or
knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death "(1). The destruction of the live embryos
is necessary to obtain the stem cells. The Coalition believes the government is side
stepping this ban by saying it will fund the research on stem cells, but it will not fund
the destruction of the embryos (1). Seemingly, the way to resolve the issue for the
government is by making a distinction between doing the research, and the source of
materials to accomplish this research.
John Hopkins researchers use a technique to extract stem cells from aborted fetuses. This
technique is slightly less controversial because the fetus's fate is not affected by the
extraction of the stem cells. Of course, this does not take into account the abortion
issue. Using already- dead fetuses has been compared to obtaining donor tissue from
cadavers. John Hopkins research will probably qualify for federal funding, because the
wording in the present ban does not include dead fetuses (Bettelheim 1070).
The University of Wisconsin researchers use embryos, which have been stored in liquid
nitrogen. The embryos are left over from fertility clinics, and are discarded. These
embryos are usually ones that are determined to be unsuitable for transplantation into
the mother's womb. There are approximately 16,000 embryos created every year. However,
their use is banned by the congressional funding ban, because the fetuses are destroyed
to obtain the stem cells. 
The National Bioethics Advisory Commission has advised President Clinton that they
believe both techniques should be used. They feel that the ethical goal of medicine to
heal, prevent disease, and do research would be compromised otherwise (1071).
The support for stem cell research comes from Patients' Coalition for Urgent Research,
National Institutes of Health, National Bioethics Advisory Commission, President Clinton,
American Medical Association, Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA), Steve Reeves Foundation, and
many more. Steve Reeves testified before the National Institute of Health hearings. He
asked if women thought it was more ethical for women to donate their unused embryos, or
let them be thrown out as garbage. He said they could be used to save many lives. He
presented a letter in support of his testimony that had been signed by four theologians;
a Catholic, a Protestant, an Islamic and a Jew all supporting stem cell research. He also
presented a letter signed by 100 medical research groups, patient advocate groups, and
academic organizations (National Institute of Health Stem Cell Issue Hearings 4). 
I chose this topic for several reasons. I have always been interested in Science. I find
the advances that have been achieved in recent years fascinating. It appears to me that
the human race is on the verge of an evolutionary period of development. Humankind could
be rid of most diseases, which could possibly launch us into a completely new way to live
and look at life. The leap in knowledge does not seem to be limited to medical
discoveries alone. We have learned more about our universe and the origins of life in the
last decade, than all the past discoveries combined. Much of the knowledge of the human
body, and how it is developed, has come from the research done in the area of cell
research. We are just now beginning to scratch the surface of how the human brain works.
Without further research at the cellular level, I do not believe we will ever truly
understand the workings of the brain.
Another reason I chose this topic is for a far less altruistic reason, I have a profound
fear of developing Alzheimer's disease. Both of my parents contracted Alzheimer's, which
does not give me much hope for my future. If there is even the slightest possibility of a
cure, I want to be informed of any new developments. The specter of a disease that robs
people of all dignity is a definite motivator to be an advocate for research in this
area.
I also have profound empathy for all the other people suffering from the myriad of
diseases that either takes lives prematurely, leaves people paralyzed, or in excruciating
pain. The quality of life is just not there for people suffering from horrible
debilitating diseases. 
I grew up in an era when women did not have the right to choose. One of my friends died
from an illegal abortion. She was fifteen years old. Many of the people that want to take
that right away from women were never exposed to the consequences of the coat hanger
abortions. I am sure my background affects my views, because the people that are against
stem cell research are the same people that want to take away a woman's right to choose.
I have been affected by their beliefs that they can regulate how everyone else should
believe. I do not feel they have the right to take away the possibility of a cure for so
many horrible diseases.
I do not agree with the Right to Life groups that are against stem cell research. I do
not believe life begins at conception. I feel there has to be a point when a fetus
receives a soul, however, I do not think a blastocyst is a human being with as much right
to life as a person. This aspect of the issue is one that needs to be investigated
further. 
Another issue that is raised with this topic is the possibility for abuse where genetic
tinkering is concerned. Human cloning is not just a science fiction fantasy. The
possibility is very real. 
There are many views and issues I was not able to cover in this paper. In my second
paper, I plan to go into detail regarding the issue of when a fetus is considered a
person. I will give more documentation and statistics from both sides of the issue.
Bibliography
Should Embryo Stem Cell Research Be Banned?
Works Cited
--- Audio News Conference. "American Society for Cell Biology Holds
Audio News Conference on Release of NIH Stem Cell Guidelines."
Speaking: Nobel Laureate Dr. Paul Berg. ASCB Stem Cell
Briefing 23 Aug. 2000.
http://www.ascb.org/ascb/newsroom/Scbriefing.html. (29 Aug. 2000)
Bettelheim, Adriel. "Embryo Research." CQ Researcher 17 Dec. 1999:47
Morris, Christine. "Stem-cell Researchers Hail U.S. Plan to Fund Work." Miami
Harold 25 Aug., 2000, natl ed.
http://www.herald.com/content/tue/living/health/digdocs/010073.htm
(30 Aug. 2000)
"National Institute of Health Stem Cell Issue Hearings." JSC Biological
Research Advocacy 23, Aug. 2000.
http://www.faseb.org/jscpp/Stemcell.htm (29 Aug. 2000) 
"National Institutes of Health to Fund Destructive Human Embryonic Stem Cell 
Research." Do No Harm: Press Release 23, Aug. 2000.
http://www.stemcellresearch.org/pr000823.htm (29 Aug. 2000)