Unfortunately some scientists aren’t using discarded embryos. In the Jones Institute for Reproductive Medicine in Norfolk, Virginia, scientists have been taking volunteers’ sperm and eggs to create a human embryo only to destroy it for its use to gather stem cells (Krauthammer, 2001). This creates the problem of creating human life only to destroy it. In America the idea of cloning another human being is out of the question. When scientists are creating human embryos, it brings out a more distinct problem between the people. What gives anyone the right to create people scientifically? If scientists are going to make clones in order to gain stem cells, who’s to say they will stop there? Serious action needs to take place and certain restrictions need to be made on the study so scientists don’t get out of control in creating embryos. Catholics of America will argue that no one has the right to play God and to create human embryos.
President Bush needs to satisfy the scientists involved in stem cell research as well as those who oppose stem cell research. Scientists will argue funding for stem cell research is important for the advances in medicine because it has the capability of becoming a great source for helping out those with incurable diseases. However, according to the three principles of the Nuremberg Code, scientists must have consent of every human research subject; human subjects must be protected against any possibility of injury or death, and experiments on
human subjects must yield results “unprocurable by any other means of study” (Lee, 2002). By doing studies on human embryos, some may say it’s in violation of the second code. If a human embryo is in fact considered to be human and it is than destroyed, our rights as a human being will be violated.
On the scientists’ side of the argument, they believe stem cell research from embryos is extremely beneficial in creating healthy cells that can be used to help treat patients with incurable diseases. Their rebuttal to the fact that they are killing human embryos are the fact that the embryos are leftovers from fertility clinics that would discard them anyway. The opposition clearly states that an embryo is considered to be human and the destruction of them is morally wrong. Also the destruction of human embryos, which is not exactly analogous to abortion, is relatively similar (Grier, 2001). Indeed there is a problem with stem cell research but to what extent? There are those who consider stem cell research to be morally and legally wrong. However, those who support stem cell research believe it’s the idea of the future.
The idea of stem cell research scares those who are against the destruction of human embryos but it excites those interested in finding new ways to find cures for various diseases. It’s possible to find solutions to satisfy the opposition of stem cell research, than there are solutions to satisfy the scientists of stem cell research. It’s apparent that the both sides will not get exactly what they want, so there needs to be a compromise of some sort.
The opposition of stem cell research proposes that the research be banned all together and all funding be cut off. If it is believed that an embryo is a human, then the destruction is equivalent to murder. As long as the opposition believes this, then there is very little convincing to bring them to the other side. However, it’s important for them to see all sides of the situation before making any judgment call. If the government were to ban stem cell research, then the hopes for potentially curing patients with diseases and cancers become a little smaller. Although, the concept of stem cell research is the creation of new cells, this scares those who believe scientists have the potential to create human life. So indeed they have every right to want to ban stem cell research.
On the other hand, scientists believe stem cell research is the wave of the future. With the capability of creating new stem cells they have the power to engineer them into any cell possible. This is extremely helpful with patients who have destroyed cells that impair them to perform on their own. The best way to handle this situation for scientists is to grant them federal funding and allow them to perform any research necessary that will later improve the capability to cure more diseases. This solution is evidently one-sided favoring the scientists who are apart of stem cell research. If President Bush ever decided to grant full federal funding and allow scientists to perform any research necessary, many religious and humanity groups will be alienated. This could have a devastating effect on the
next election. Therefore, President Bush needs to be careful about his exact decision on stem cell research.
There’s only one solution applicable for those who are one-sided on the situation. Yet, for those sitting on the fence of the debate there’s still hope. If those sitting on the fence believe it’s wrong to destroy human embryos but support the idea of trying to create new cells from stem cells in order to help those who need it, than there needs to be a way to satisfy their interests. “Many of us have said we would support stem-cell research that does not result in the destruction of embryos,” said C. Ben Mitchel, a senior fellow at the center for Bioethics & Human Dignity (Carey, Licking, 2002). It’s evident that if a possible way to obtain stem cells without the destruction of human embryos, a lot more people would become supporters. According to the American Spectator, scientists have developed a way to obtain stem cells from adult bone marrow (Gottlieb, 2001). This eliminates the destruction of embryos. Adult stem cells can be used in the treatment of cancer patients. Also, this is more likely to obtain funding from investors because investors wouldn’t want their name associated with a company that destroys embryos. However, if a company sees that a beneficial way to help others without upsetting the public as much, then they would be willing to help out if it means benefiting them. Unfortunately, scientists are claiming that adult stem cells aren’t nearly as effective as stem cells from embryos. This may cause tension
for scientists if they have to research only on adult stem cells, which may cut back on the benefits of the research.
No solution will satisfy all sides of the problem. President Bush needs to realize it’s impossible to satisfy everyone so he needs to compromise and realize what’s best for the people. If embryonic stem cell research has the greatest potential to give the best results, then that’s what needs to be done. However, certain restrictions need to be taken in account. Scientists may not create their own embryos from donor gametes from volunteers. Scientists may not clone human embryos to destroy. The only embryos scientists should be allowed to use are the embryos that would have been discarded from fertility banks. However, scientists need to continue research on adult stem cells and other subjects to hopefully find a better way to obtain stem cells other than from embryos. Obviously, no solution will satisfy everyone but these restrictions may satisfy most.
The debate of stem cell research will continue for a very long time until it’s realized that most important thing is the health and wellness of human life. Scientists need to realize the impact their making in the biological field as well as the religious and moral aspect of the situation. Also, those who oppose the idea of stem cell research need to realize that scientists are coming up with new innovations on helping humans. Everything done is to eventually try and help everyone who needs it. Think back to when the idea of evolution was ridiculous. If
it’s possible to get past that, then it’s certainly possible to overcome this problem. It will take a lot of patience and understanding from all sides.
The Many Controversies of Stem Cell Research
Thesis: Stem cell research has the potential to be the number one source to use for patients stricken with diseases except for the fact it involves the destruction of human embryos.
I. Stem cell research
A. Heals patients with diseases
B. Destroys human embryos
II. Problem with stem cell research
A. Considered the destruction of human embryos
1. Can lead to scientists to clone human embryos
2. Can produce living tissues
3. Can create a human
B. Considered legally wrong
1. Considered to be living
2. Destruction is considered to be murder
C. Considered morally wrong
1. Violates some legal issues but also religious issues
a. The destruction of a life has to come first
b. The value of life
2. Saves lives in the future
III. Solution to the problem
A. Adult stem cells considered to be promising
1. Granted research on an adult stem cell
2. Have every potential of that of an embryo
B. Laws should be enforced on what kind is allowed
1. Set restrictions
a. May not clone an embryo
b. Cannot fertilize an egg with sperm from donors
2. Use discarded embryos from fertility clinics
C. Stop all funding
1. Will only exist if the scientists have the money to
2. Should gather stem cells without raising moral or legal issues
IV. Conclusion
A. Has the capability helping cure
B. Can help for diseases and cancers
C. Will involve the destruction of embryos
D. Should use adult stem cells
Works Cited
Borger, G. “You Can’t Spin the Pope.” U.S. News & World Report, 131. 8 August
2001.
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/gborger.htm.
Carey, J; Licking, E. “The Stem Cell Debate Just Got Thornier.” Business Week,
3769. 2002 February 11. http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/02_06/b376973.htm.
Gottlieb, S. “Adults Cells Do It Better.” American Spectator, 34. 2001 June.
http://www.gilder.com.amspec/gilderarchives/June01/frontGottlieb.htm.
Grier, P. “In Stem Cell Debate, A Culture War.” Christian Science Monitor, 93. 6
July 2001.
http://www.csmonitor.com/cgi-bin/avcombosearchsecure.redesign.htm.
Krauthammer, C. Mounting the Slippery Slope. Time Atlantic, 158. 23 July 2001.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/krauhammer1.asp.
Lee, J. Embryonic Stem Cells: The End Doesn’t Justify the Means. January 2001.
http://www.uscatholis.org/.
Bibliography
Borger, G. “You Can’t Spin the Pope.” U.S. News & World Report, 131. 8 August
2001.
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/gborger.htm.
Carey, J; Licking, E. “The Stem Cell Debate Just Got Thornier.” Business Week,
3769. 2002 February 11. http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/02_06/b376973.htm.
Centofanti, M. “New Type of Human Cells Engineered at Hopkins.” Daily
University Science News. 7 January, 2001.
http://www.unsci.com/stories/20011/0108011.htm.
Gottlieb, S. “Adults Cells Do It Better.” American Spectator, 34. 2001 June.
http://www.gilder.com.amspec/gilderarchives/June01/frontGottlieb.htm.
Grier, P. “In Stem Cell Debate, A Culture War.” Christian Science Monitor, 93. 6
July 2001.
http://www.csmonitor.com/cgi-bin/avcombosearchsecure.redesign.htm.
Krauthammer, C. “Mounting the Slippery Slope.” Time Atlantic, 158. 23 July
2001.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/krauhammer1.asp.
Kwang-Soo Kim, Ph. D. “Analysis of Different Prometer Systems for Efficient
Transgene Expression in Mouse Embryonic Stem Cell Lines.” Stem Cells. 2002.
http://www.stemcells.alphamedpress.org/cgi/content/short/20/2/139.htm.
Lee, J. “Embryonic Stem Cells: The End Doesn’t Justify the Means.” US Catholic
67. January 2001.
http://www.uscatholis.org/.
Public Agenda Online. “Overview: The Issue at a Glance.” 26 March, 2002
http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/frames/statsfr/html.
