In order to have a better idea about the issue of the pros and cons of stem cell research, we must first be aware of where does the stem cells come from. Basically, it’s been said that there exist three principal sources from where stem cells can be obtained, and they are embryonic cells, cord cells, and adult cells. Doctors can extract adult stem cells from two places: from the core of bones, or from the peripheral system. It has been demonstrated that the core of a bone is a plentiful source of stem cells, but the procedure of extracting those cells can result in a painful damage to the bone core. On the other hand, if someone does not want or cannot take that risk, there is the option of extracting the stem cells from the peripheral system, which can be done with no destruction of the bone, but that also takes more time to achieve it, and we all know that in presence of a health issue, time is a precious factor that cannot be delayed. Despite the fact that they are very hard to extract, the superiority of the adult stem cells when compared to the cord and embryonic stem cells is indisputable, especially because they are obtained from the patient’s own body and therefore there is zero possibility that the body’s immune system can reject those cells. As I mentioned before, stem cells can also be obtained from the cord cells, also known as the umbilical cord cells, which by the way are another very rich source of stem cells. The cells that come from the umbilical cord are usually taken during pregnancy and later on they are preserved in special types of banks called cryogenic cell banks (which means that these cells are stored in freezers that maintain a very low temperature for their proper conservation), and they remain there as a kind of insurance policy, so the parents of the newborn can have the confidence that those cells can be used in the future on behalf of their child. These special cells have also another important use, and it is that the parents of the newborn can also use them for their benefit, even other members of the family, but a little problem that exists regarding this use is that the farther the relationship is with the newborn, the greater the possibilities that those stem cells will be rejected by the antibodies of the person’s immune system. One of the greatest benefits of the cord cells is that, when compared with the adult cells and embryonic cells, the umbilical cord is much richer in stem cells that the other two sources, and also those cells have the advantage that they can be stored ahead and therefore are available every time they are needed. For this and many other reasons, the donation of the umbilical cord cells is highly recommended, the process of doing this is similar to that of blood banking, and it can surely help to save many lives, since scientists have developed some techniques to avoid the rejection of the stem cells by the immune system of a person when there does not exist a DNA match between the donor and the receiver.
In reality, the whole issue about stem cell research gains strengths when the third source of stem cells, the embryonic cells, joins the debate. These types of cells are directly taken from the embryo before the differentiation of the cells of this embryo occurs, which at this stage the embryo is called with the medical terminology of “blastocyst.” Research has shown that there are approximately one hundred cells in this blastocyst, the majority of them being stem cells, which can be maintained alive for an indefinite period of time and they tend to reproduce more and more in number every two or three days. But this explanation is not what brings the controversy into the table, the argument begins when the people that claim that the human life begins at the very point of conception reject the idea of embryonic stem cell research, and the main reason they offer for their reject is that in the process of extracting the stem cells from this third type of source, the embryo has to be destroyed. From their point of view, then, this process requires killing a human life, or, another way in which they put this issue, it requires what is the same as committing a murder. In their defense, scientists researching about this embryonic cells point out that this types of embryos without differentiated cells, the blastocyst, do not have human features. However, although a lot of fertilized human cells have been banked, they have not been approved for research because the embryonic cells research opponents claim that new human lives cannot be brought into this world with the sole purpose of experimenting with them. What these persons argue, in other words, is that it is just not ethical to destroy what they consider already a human being (the blastocyst) in order to save other. For them, what stem cell research does in terms of destroying the blastocyst in order to extract from it the embryonic stem cells is exactly the same as committing a murder. In their point of view, this action is not ethical and does not justify the possible benefits of the research; therefore, society should not justify this research and be more ethical when it comes to respect the right of a human being to live, and not being sacrificed in its initial periods in order to save another fellow human being.
The people against embryonic stem cell research also claim that besides the ethical issues behind the destruction of the blastocyst, considered for them already a human being, there are other reasons for not doing such type of research. For example, they explain that one of the disadvantages of embryonic stem cells is that it can be hard to control them, since these cells would have the possibility to go through some intermediate periods before they can become the kind of cell required to cure a specific disease, a process that is generally controlled by composite chemical signals. Another disadvantage can be determined by the differences between the immune system of the donor and the immune system of the recipient, which would cause the rejection of the stem cells by the immune system of the recipient, especially if the family relationship between donor and recipient is too far away. There exist also disadvantages in the use of adult stem cells for the treatment or cure of some diseases, and the first one is that adult stem cells seem to be in scarcity, because, as of today, not all kinds of these cells have been discovered. Secondly, some of them may be unavailable and extremely dangerous to be taken from their source, because, for example, there may be severe risks for a person’s brain if a doctor or scientist tries to extract from it neural stem cells, to have an idea of how delicate this process would be. Thirdly, these types of cells have very short-term lives, even shorter than the lives of the other kinds of stem cells, and therefore, they can vanish very quickly. Fourthly, adult stem cells are generally rare and not usually very common to find, and this problem gets bigger as soon as we grow older, a period in which they can be needed the most. The final disadvantage is closely related with the issue regarding the quality of these types of cells, since it has been said that after a treatment based on adult stem cells, some genetic deficiencies can occur if the patient is exposed to some kinds of toxins or the sunlight.
Another very important critic that stem cell research is receiving is the fact that lots of people are convinced that, in a near future, stem cell research may lead to the discovery of the genetic secrets about how to make human clones, which, in one side, may be considered by a few persons an amazing advantage, but on the other side, for most of us that would mean a terrible threat if the powerful finding falls into the wrong hands. Of course, it is true that nobody can predict right now whether this can happen or not, but what is totally true is that we have seen in the past powerful innovations accomplished by the most excellent scientists, such as the research about nuclear power, that although have been intended to do good for humanity as the most important reason for their existence, at the end they have ended up having terrible outcomes, as we all know. For most persons in this country and around the globe, human cloning is considered no more than a mechanic way to reproduce a human being from the DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) of another, being kind of manufactured in a medical laboratory to predetermined conditions and deprived of personality or individuality. From their point of view (and mine too), this is not a recognized nor worthy method to welcome a fellow human being into this world. But it gets even worst when the issue of using human cloning for stem cell research arises, because it engages the same moral wrong of stem cell research from human embryos, and that is the destruction of an innocent human being in order to satisfy the needs or benefit others. Furthermore, this process of human cloning for stem cell research purposes would also bring another unethical and terrible action, and that would be to create human life with the sole function of providing their stem cells for research. That would constitute the ultimate lessening of a human person to an instrument of other persons’ desires.
