Page Number 1
Student Name
Teacher Name
Course
Date
The Pros and Cons of Embryonic Stem Cell Research in the Medical Field
Through the course of history, advancements in medical science have been easily labeled
as positive. Many of these advancements have led to cures for illnesses, treatments for chronic
diseases, and an overall increase in the quality of the lives of those with various sicknesses.
However, one of the most recent and revolutionary medical advancements is surrounded by
intense controversy. Human embryonic stem cell research has been both lauded and criticized,
and individuals on both sides of the argument make a strong case for feeling the way that they
do.
Proponents of embryonic stem cell research cite the many potential medical benefits that
could be developed from stem cells as the main reason for why this research should continue to
be conducted. No current medical treatments derived from embryonic stem cells exist, but those
that support further research into the uses of stem cells maintain that great medical advancements
can be made through the use of embryonic stem cells.
Embryonic stem cells show great promise in use in the field of regenerative medicine.
Russel defines regenerative medicine as cellular, tissue, and organ substitutions that help to
restore function to damaged parts on the human body (Russel et al, 2). All forms of stem cells
have been found to be very useful for use in regenerative medicine. However, because of their
pluripotency, or ability to become any cell in the human body, embryonic stem cells are more
useful in regenerative medicine. Pillai notes that the pluripotency of embryonic stem cells makes
them more versatile than stem cells classified as adult (Pillai, 1). This is because adult stem cells
Page Number 2
are already differentiated when harvested. In the article “Other Stem Cells: Embryonic Stem
Cells” it is mentioned that embryonic stem cells have the potential to be cultured and grown into
various types of cells including liver, muscle, bone, and nerve tissues (Other Stem Cells, 1).
Being able to grow entire organs from an initially small amount of cells could potentially create
cures for chronic illnesses as well as simply increase the quality of life for individuals afflicted in
different ways. Embryonic stem cell research also shows potential in creating treatments and
cures for other medical ailments.
Prabhakar Pillai mentions that human embryonic stem cells have demonstrated the
potential to treat several chronic ailments such as Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease,
cancer, spinal cord injuries, and diabetes (Pillai, 1). The basis for the potential treatment for these
illnesses is also the pluripotency of embryonic stem cells. Diseases such as these typically have
biological causes that can possibly be treated through the application of embryonic stem cell
research. According to Saxena, Alzheimer’s disease and Parkinson’s disease, two neurological
disorders, could be treated by replacing the dysfunctional brain sections with new tissue created
from stem cells (Saxena, 2). Similar processes would be used to treat multiple diseases and
illnesses, and supporters of embryonic stem cell research fervently promote the medical benefits
that could be obtained from this research.
Diabetes patients are viewed as top candidates that could benefit from researching
embryonic stem cells. Saxena mentions that the population in India has a staggering number of
people suffering from diabetes and that many of these people are in need of organ transplants
(Saxena, 2). Embryonic stem cells could help reduce the number of diabetics needing organ
transplants by being utilized to create new pancreases and livers for those who have more severe
cases of the disease. Embryonic stem cells could also be used to repair partially damaged or
malfunctioning organs to prevent the disease from taking its full effect, essentially curing the
Page Number 3
illness. Supporters of this kind of stem cell research believe that further research into the medical
benefits that could be obtained will revolutionize the medical field. However, there are other
people who are against embryonic stem cell research.
Those who oppose embryonic stem cell research make several strong arguments against
the application of this research in the contemporary medical setting. The ethical debate over the
life of an embryo is the most prevalent of these arguments. Rich Deem writes that the most
common source of embryonic stem cells is the blastocyst, a human embryo between five and
fourteen days old (Deem, 1). The consequence of harvesting stem cells from embryos is the
source of concern for those who do not support embryonic stem cell research. Pillai writes that
even with modern medical technologies, obtaining cells from embryos results in the destruction
of the developing human organism (Pillai, 1). The death of a potential human life is a prevailing
source of controversy in respect to embryonic stem cell research.
Those positioned against the use of embryonic stem cells maintain that human life begins
at conception. This standpoint is based primarily in individual opinions and moral stances. In the
article “Stem Cell Research: Pros and Cons”, a critic of stem cell research is quoted saying, “A
life is a life and that should never be compromised. A fertilized egg should be valued as a human
life even if it is in its very first weeks" (Stem Cell Research, 1). This point of view is based off of
the fact that once a human sperm fertilizes an egg, the biological development of a human being
begins. According to Doerflinger, even in the earliest stages of development, an embryo is a
human being (Doerflinger, 1). Because challengers of embryonic stem cell research view an
embryo in the same light as a fully developed human being, the destruction of an embryo is
equivalent to murder, and is morally abhorrent. Though the debate concerning respect for the life
of a human embryo is at the forefront of the controversy surrounding embryonic stem cell
research, there are other concerns associated with this branch of medical science.
Page Number 4
Embryonic stem cells are desired for research because of their potential pluripotency.
However, this characteristic of embryonic stem cells also poses a possible complication for those
undergoing medical treatments derived from these cells. In the article “Other Stem Cells:
Embryonic Stem Cells” it is mentioned that the volatility of stem cells presents challenges to
stem cell research such as transplant rejection and the formation of tumors in patients (Other
Stem Cells, 1). These possible dangers are a major argument used by individuals against
embryonic stem cell research because of the potential threat to the health and lives of those
undergoing stem-cell-based treatments.
Transplant rejection is a significant concern for people who would receive medical
treatments created from stem cells or resulting from embryonic stem cell research. Pillai writes
that because embryonic stem cell research is still a relatively new science, there is an abundance
of unknown factors about it, including how a human body would respond to stem-cell-based
treatments (Pillai, 1). The majority of stem cells that would be used for medical purposes would
not come from the individual receiving the treatment; this would increase the chances that the
stem cells would be rejected by the recipient. Undergoing tissue or cell rejection would be very
stressful to an already ailing human body. Rich Deem writes that millions of stem cells lines
would need to be cultured and established to effectively help a substantial number of potential
patients (Deem, 2). The risk of rejection is one of the biggest hurdles facing embryonic stem cell
research, and detractors of this research assert that the possible medical benefits do not outweigh
the potential perils of experimental treatments. In addition to this difficulty, other issues
challenge the effectiveness of embryonic stem cell research.
Because stem cells collected from human embryos can develop into any human tissue,
there is a high risk of these cells forming tumors in patients. Rich Deem asserts that unless
embryonic stem cells are allowed to mature and become specialized for one type of body tissue
Page Number 5
before being used in treatments, they have great potential to form masses in patients (Deem, 1).
Potential risks of cancerous growths and diseases are a predominant concern for people who do
not support embryonic stem cell research. They feel that the safety of the treatments is too
uncertain and therefore any medical procedures derived from stem cells would be unsuitable for
use in humans. Ben-David writes that human embryonic stem cells share certain properties with
tumors and cancer cell lines which make them prone to forming tumors in patients injected with
these cells (Ben-David, 1). The creation of growths as a side effect of embryonic stem cell
treatments is incredibly common in the research field. Results from laboratory test and trials
validate the high occurrence of tumor growths in test subjects.
The studies that demonstrate the risk of lumps of cells forming have been primarily
conducted in mice and rats. Rich Deem writes that spontaneous sprouting of tumors in lab rats is
a persistent problem and that it is likely that similar problems would occur in humans if stem
cells were injected into them (Deem, 2). The majority of the tumors that grow in these lab
animals are benign, or relatively harmless, teratomas. However, a portion of the tumors become
malignant and begin harming the health of the mice and rats, and occasionally death occurs
because of these growths. Also, because the occurrence of tumor development in the culturing of
embryonic stem cell lines is so common, researchers use whether or not growths form to
determine if a group of cells is viable and flourishing. People who argue against embryonic stem
cell research find the potential for cancer development highly unsettling, as they do with other
concerns over this particular branch of research.
Embryonic stem cell research is an advancement in medical science that has created a lot
of debate in contemporary culture over ethics and medical safety. Evidence and research
showing the potential benefits of this research propels the argument for continuing the
exploration of this topic, while detractors argue against it using medical risks and ethical issues
Page Number 6
as main points of discussion. The dispute over embryonic stem cell research is highly sensitive,
with most people choosing distinctly one side and no one seeking middle ground within the
argument. It is clear that for progress to be made on this present issue, compromises will need to
be made between the individuals on both sides of the argument.