Lisa Pett
Embryonic Stem Cell Research
The debate over the use of embryonic stem cell research crosses a moral and scientific threshold,
stirring emotions from both sides of the debate. A stem cell is an “unspecialized cell type in a human
body that is capable of becoming a specialized cell” (Capecchi). These cells are capable of self-renewal
and are often involved in the repair and maintenance of organs. These cells can either be harvested as
adult cells or embryonic cells. Adult stem cells are very slow growing, and are restricted to renewing
only their own type of cell. They are also very difficult to harvest and often times don’t survive.
However, embryonic stem cells can be isolated before they differentiate or specialize into a specific cell.
Scientists can halt the cell’s growth before it becomes a specific cell such as an intestinal cell, and
manipulate it to become a different cell such as a heart or liver cell. Embryonic stem cells have rapid
growth, are very versatile and are pluripotent, meaning hypothetically, they can produce all of the cells in
the body. The drawback is where the controversy lies; the embryonic stem cells can only be harvested
from a living, human embryo.
Religion and ethics are factors in the debate against the use of embryonic stem cells. “The
question is whether the destruction of human embryos in stem cell research amounts to the killing of
human beings” (Sandel, McHugh). Because arguments exist in determining the moment that life
technically begins in an embryo, it is hard to distinguish between scientific research and simply
destroying human life. Some fertility clinics allow the donation of unused embryos to scientific research
upon parental consent. These embryos may have been intended for in vitro fertilization but were not used.
Rather than discarding the embryos, they could be used to further the research and fuel potential medical
discoveries. However, a privately funded clinic in Virginia was growing human embryos with the intent
of harvesting stem cells, provoking the argument that we can begin a slippery slope of destroying human
life for the purpose of furthering scientific research (Reaves). This concern for human life at any stage
would argue, “the moral cost of continuing such research outweighs any potential benefits” (Reaves).
What future possibilities would this open up that could potentially involve living embryos or even older
fetus’? Is this a slippery slope that we want to embark upon?
Lisa Pett
The other side of the debate recognizes the importance of the potential discoveries and
implications that could someday arise via embryonic stem cell research. The potential to repair or
maintain organs in the future is a tremendous positive to the argument to use stem cells from an embryo.
“Today, donated organs and tissues are often used to replace those that are diseased or destroyed.
Unfortunately, the number of people needing a transplant far exceeds the number of organs available for
transplantation. Pluripotent stem cells offer the possibility of a renewable source of replacement cells and
tissues to treat a myriad of diseases, conditions, and disabilities including Parkinson's disease,
amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, spinal cord injury, burns, heart disease, diabetes, and arthritis” (Sandel,
McHugh). One path around the argument that embryos are viable human life and deserve to be treated as
such is the fact that “approximately 20,000 early human embryos are discarded every year in our country
alone by in vitro clinics” (Capecchi). These embryos that must legally be thrown out every year when the
parents decide not to use them could instead be allowed for use in research. This could serve as a
compromise to both sides of the spectrum - respecting life by not discarding it but rather putting it to good
use.
While I can see the points of both sides of the argument, I find myself agreeing with the side of
medical research. My father in-law suffers from Parkinson’s Disease and seeing him and his family
suffer has made me open to various methods of research if it would dramatically improve the quality of
life for a person or save their life. If a human embryo is going to be discarded anyway, why not allow it
to be used for good? It would be wasteful to destroy it and the potential it carries. I do not agree,
however, that embryos should be created for the purpose of harvesting stem cells. I think that life is to be
respected and to create “life” for the purpose of destroying it is unsettling to me. However, to turn away
from a possibility that has so much potential for hope and healing would be a disservice to those suffering
from ailments and diseases that are holding on for a cure. I agree with researchers who say, “To turn back
now would be tantamount to turning our backs on a bright, sustaining light because we are terrified of the
shadows it creates” (Reaves).
Lisa Pett
References
Capecchi, Mario. “The Promise of Embryonic Stem Cell Therapy; Euphoria or Ethical Quagmire?”
Lecture at Salt Lake Community College (2008)
Reaves, Jessica. "The Great Debate Over Stem Cell Research." Time. Time Inc., 11 July 2001. Web. 4
Aug. 2014. <http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,167245,00.html>.
Sandel, Michael J., and Paul McHugh. "Embryo Ethics — The Moral Logic of Stem-Cell Research." New
England Journal of Medicine 351.3 (2004): 207-09. Web.