Stem Cell Research Embryonic Stem-Cell

Stem Cell Research

Embryonic stem-cell research is not practically 'embryonic' and most of the ethical refutations in respect of embryonic stem cell research could be settled by more research. Restricting federal funding would not halt the embryonic stem cell research, but will only lead to a redistribution of research funds and above all majority of the Americans support embryonic stem cell research which is essential for the treatment of those who are challenged by serious diseases.

The research on stem cells has been vehemently criticized both politically and morally attracting the biologists to involve in ethical debates over the issue and generating in the common people to exhibit great enthusiasm in this arena of biology. (Lovell-Badge, 88) Why does stem cell research attract the ambit of public interest? It is because this research requires the support of government funding. Moreover, its prospect for international alliance generates the necessities for regulations for controlling such interchange. Ultimately, the probability that stem cell research would lead the way to consumable goods in the field of medicine results in the required input from the Food and Drug Administration. (Bobrow, 140) However much of debate and discussions on the stem cell research have been leveled on emotional basis, pitting the expectation of providing treatment to the acute medical conditions as against the moral convictions of several Americans. To come to an informed conclusion on human embryonic stem cell research, it is pertinent to have a clear comprehension of the concept of embryonic stem cell and also to be more precise about the possibility of the real usefulness of embryonic stem cells for medical treatments. (Condic, 31)

Ever since many decades the prevalence of stem cells has been known to the scientists, however, it was only during 1998 that the mode of culturing these cells from human embryos for longer durations and through several cell divisions was devised. (Marwick, 1192) Stem cells are identified to be the cells those have the power to grow into any of the 300 various kinds of cells in the human body. (Perrone, A5) Stem cells are remarkable for their capacity to self-renew and distinguish into varied kinds of cells. Some of the stem cells have been termed as totipotent cells, having enormous capability to self-energize and become distinct. The Embryonic stem cells are found to have the potentiality of pluripotent effect that enables them to generate tissues of all the three germ layers, however being incapable of constituting an entire living being. (Cogle; Guthrie; Sanders; Allen; Scot; Petersen, 993) In case of an adult while the stem cells are going through the process of cell division, few of the progeny grows into particular kinds of cells like heart or muscle cells while others stay to be stem cells, prepared to split again to constitute new focused cells to deal with the daily wear and tear on the body. Such stem cells are potent enough for regenerating themselves to renew tissue indefinitely over the entire life period of humans. (John, 47)

Another kind of stem cell is located in the human embryo. The human embryo starts as a single totipotent cell, generated when a sperm cell would fertilize an egg cell. A totipotent cell has the capacity to constitute an embryo, the tissues necessitated to promote the embryo in the uterus as well as the total tissues and organs that ultimately constitute the adult human. After a short span of time within the development processes of the embryo, the stem cells start to specialize. They constitute an empty sphere, termed as blastocyst that embodies an outer cell mass that will gradually constitute the placenta and an inner cell mass that will gradually constitute all the entire tissues of the human body. Cells in the inner cell mass are known as pluripotent due to the fact that they are not capable of developing into almost any cell type in the human body irrespective of the fact of their inability to constitute the tissues promoting the embryo in the uterus, they are capable of generating into almost any cell kind in the human body. Such pluripotent stem cells are the basis of the current ethical debate and discussion over applying embryonic stem cells for research. (John, 47)

Having a discussion on the moral and political views against stem cell research is significant to understanding whether the debate evolving around the stem cell research is valid or not. (Cogle; Guthrie; Sanders; Allen; Scot; Petersen, 994) We shall first of all understand the moral opposition to stem cell research. The most significant worldwide opposition to the stem cell research stems from the Catholic Church, irrespective of the fact that many individual American Catholics are not supporters of this idea. The official Catholic position is contradictory to in vitro fertilization since it is quite abnormal since it leads to the production of embryos which are not utilized. (Stem Cell Research: News batch)

Anti-abortion groups argue against embryonic stem cell research since it leads to the destruction of the human embryos. (Gareth; Byrne; Jones, 6) Many conservative pro-lifers and pro-life organizations consider the destruction of the blastocyst, which is a laboratory-fertilized human egg to be similar to ending a human life. They consider that life initiates at conception, and that putting an end to this pre-born life is ethically offensive. They consider it is unethical or immoral to destroy the human embryo of a few days old, even for the sake of saving or healing a suffering of an existing human life. (Pros & Cons of Embryonic Stem Cell Research) The Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics advocates the case in this manner: "Destroying human embryonic life is not required for making medical advances, as alternative forms of attaining human stem cells as well as of repairing and also regenerating the human tissues exist and would tend to be developed." (Perrone, A5)

Many also consider that inadequate focus is accorded to find out the prospects of adult stem cells; which have already been applied fruitfully to heal many sufferings. They also advocate that very less significance has been provided to the prospects of umbilical cord blood for stem cell research. The opponents to the embryonic stem cell research argue that grants should be advanced to largely concentrate on adult stem research, to avoid many ethical concerns associated with the application of human embryos. They also mention that no treatments have yet been generated by the embryonic stem cell therapy. (Pros & Cons of Embryonic Stem Cell Research)

Now let us have an understanding on the political opposition to the stem cell research. President Bush has been antagonistic since long towards the embryonic stem cell research on emotional considerations. Being true to his bias against stem cell research, on July 19, 2006 President George W. Bush applied his constitutional privilege to veto a congressional act for the first of its kind in the six years of his office. The bill been passed through the Republican backed Congress would have accorded the required extension of the embryonic stem-cell research. It entailed for federal funding to facilitate the derivation of embryonic stem-cell lines from fertilized eggs that are preserved in deep freezers and already leveled for destruction. The President adduced in his veto message that the stem cells can be extracted from children, adults and the blood in umbilical cords with no injury to the donor and these stem cells are presently being applied in medical treatments. It was being mentioned in the New York Times that Karl Rove, head of the Political Affairs in White House, has stated that the embryonic stem cells are not essential since there is much potentiality available from the adult stem cells. However it need to be understood that the notion that adult stem cells have the same growth perspective as that of embryonic stems cells, is quite unconvincing. (Schwartz, 1189)

Now I shall express my opinion in support of stem cell research which is counter to the arguments stated by the ethical and political position mentioned above on the issue. A political disagreement about the new research, that has the prospects for providing treatment to hazardous ailments and to promote healthy aging, reveals the necessity to regard the public emotions and to legalize public accordance, along with the significance of associating patients in debates and discussions where the mode of biomedical revelations and ethical faiths crash. (Perry, 1423) With regard to the need for supporting stem cell research, I state here that on July 19, 2006 Bush lost a scope to extent promotion for research on stem cells that have the prospects to distinguish into many separate kinds of tissues. His veto disillusioned new avenues for the growth of embryonic stem-cell research and will lead to awful devastation: About a million of fertilized eggs will be destroyed without a single cell being allowed to cater to our comprehension of cell differentiation. (Schwartz, 1189)

It is essential to comprehend that limiting the federal grants to a confined number of cell lines will hinder the growth of science. (Condic, 31) Scientists visualize immeasurable value in the application of embryonic stem cell research to comprehend human growth and the development and healing of ailments. More than 100 million Americans are ailing from the diseases that subsequently might be dealt more successfully or even cured with embryonic stem cell procedure. Majority of the researchers consider stem cell research as having large prospects for healing human ailments ever since the inception of antibiotics. (Pros & Cons of Embryonic Stem Cell Research) Stem cells have extended much expectation by assuring largely to expand horizontally in terms of number and range of patients that could have advantage from transplants, and to entail cell replacement procedure to heal the devastating ailments like diabetes, cancer, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's and Huntington's disease, Alzheimer's disease, spinal cord injuries, heart disease, several innumerable ailments due to rare immune system and genetic disorders and many more. (Lovell-Badge, 88)

Even President Bush is not antagonistic to the scientific value of embryonic stem cell research in contradiction to the less contentious non-embryonic forms of stem cell research. In an East Room address, circumscribed by a group of cute kids who where adopted as frozen embryos, the President recognized that embryonic stem cells have the capability to develop into specialized adult tissues, and it may entail them the prospect to substitute damaged or defective cells or body parts and treat several diseases. The sole reason for the veto, he adduced, was that embryonic stem cell research surpasses the ethical limitations. However, is it really true? (Birnbaum, 4)

Most of the ethical refutations in respect of embryonic stem cell research could be settled by more research. The stem cell research, according to a report from the National Institutes of Health sent in June 2001 to Tommy G. Thompson, secretary of Health and Human Services, assures large prospects for new strategies to tissue and organ repair and is energizing rejuvenation in stem cell biology. (Marwick, 1192) With the progress of time it would also be possible to dissuade the destruction of a great numbers of embryos. (Winston, 397) The scientists of Harvard University in the month of August, 2005 had revealed a pioneer discovery that fuses 'blank' embryonic stem cells with that of the adult skin cells, instead of with the fertilized embryos to generate all-purpose stem cells effective in taking care of ailments and impairments. This discovery doesn't associate with the death of fertilized human embryos, and thus would successfully answer pro-life refutations to embryonic stem cell research and therapy. (Pros & Cons of Embryonic Stem Cell Research)

The researchers of Harvard University signaled that it could take up to ten years to rectify such highly assuring procedure. While South Korea, Germany, Japan, Great Britain, India and other nations would soon champion these new technological frontiers, the U.S. would be far away and away in this medical advancement. (Pros & Cons of Embryonic Stem Cell Research) However, it could also be indicated that research on embryonic stem cells will grow in a number of private scientific centers, without federal funding and one might contemplate, at a pace unregulated by the federal bureaucracy. (Schwartz, 1911) Moreover, the U.S. law has not yet condemned the stem cell research, however, only use of federal funds for that research. The prominent therapeutic applications of stem cell research rests too far in the future and are too indefinite to draw much private investment, according the high discount rates that most business assessments are performed in respect of the projects. However, there are large avenues of state and particularly private benevolent spending on medical research, and therefore, the condemnation on federal grant on this field will only lead to a redistribution of research funds. (The Economics of Stem-Cell Research -- Posner) Further the maximum impact of the U.S. ban would just be to shift all stem cell research to other nations; it would not halt the research and lead to saving the embryos. For example, the potential American researchers, strangled with the political and administrative limitations, are more enlightened and attracted towards a new center in Singapore. (Schwartz, 1911) In addition commitment to federal funds leads to sound social policy by enhancing the possibility that the outcomes of stem cell research will exhibit broad-based social priorities which are quite unlikely to be dealt with if the research was held within the private sphere alone. (Sherlock; Morrey, 586)

Now we shall look at another aspect which proves the support for stem cell research. Surveys indicate that majority of Americans support the utilization of their federal tax funds in promoting embryonic stem cell research. (Pros & Cons of Embryonic Stem Cell Research) The NBC New/Wall Street Journal in its July 2006 issue have revealed that 68% of Americans are in favor of extending federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research, while only 27% are opposed to it. The University of Pennsylvania National Annenberg Election Survey of 2004 that divided its sample by party affiliation reveals further that a majority of Republicans of 53-38% were in support of extending support for embryonic stem-cell research. There are forceful causes as to the why more Americans are convinced over this one topic than probably that of any other on the legislative docket. (Birnbaum, 5)

While some have put the debate of stem-cell research within the sphere of 'Culture War'- secular America vs. religious America - the reality is that the majority of religious America is in favor of embryonic stem cell research. And with the more and more Americans gradually becoming aware of exactly what stem cell research provided for, it can be certain that even more would favor it. This is due to the fact that the embryonic stem-cell research is not practically 'embryonic'. (Birnbaum, 5) At the central point of all this debate is the fact as to how we consider the human life to be. The crucial point is whether it is justified to dissuade the death or severe ailment of a child or adult by applying cells attained from fertilized eggs. Do we accord equal moral status to both adults and embryos and is it increasing with advancing development? What should be our legal stand towards abortion and our preparedness to avoid ectopic pregnancies? Besides, human preimplantation embryos have only a confined prospect to become humans. Most vanish prior to the menstrual period. Contraceptives that focus on destruction of embryos are accepted widely and there is general public acceptability of the in vitro fertilization --IVF. It is pertinent to note that only about 10% of transferred IVF embryos generate a baby, and around thousands generated annually during such process of treatments are unable to be transferred and are destroyed. (Winston, 396)

It is required to be comprehended that the stem cells, those which are in focus, are obtained from a five-day-old zygote, more particularly known as 'blastocyst' that has yet to go through the process of cell differentiation. It is particularly in a different group than an embryo, much less a fetus. It is not astonishing, then that many staunchly anti-abortion politicians have favored stem cell research. The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act would not have been passed through the congress had it lacked the support of many significant pro-life congressmen and senators, and those involved included even Bill Frist, the present senate majority leader; Trent Lott- the earlier senate majority leader and Orrin Hatch. (Birnbaum, 5)