This paper examines the ongoing debate surrounding stem cell research by distinguishing between embryonic and adult stem cells, their respective medical applications, and the ethical controversies each raises. Drawing on sources from the Mayo Clinic, the National Institutes of Health, and peer-reviewed literature, the paper surveys the scale of diseases that stem cell therapies could address, compares the practical challenges of each cell type, and interrogates the moral question of when human life begins. The author ultimately argues against the expansion of embryonic stem cell research while advocating for the full development of adult stem cell applications as a more ethically sound path forward.
The paper demonstrates issue framing — the deliberate strategy of defining contested terms before advancing a normative claim. By separating embryonic from adult stem cells at the outset, the author ensures that subsequent moral arguments apply precisely to the correct subject, avoiding the common error of conflating the two in ethical analysis.
The paper follows a classic problem-position-solution arc across five sections. It opens with definitions, establishes the scale of need through epidemiological data, reviews the science of how each cell type fights disease, works through the moral and ethical objections, and closes with a pragmatic policy recommendation. This structure mirrors the format of a policy brief, moving from descriptive background to normative conclusion in a logical sequence.
The recent discovery of stem cell usefulness in helping cure persistent diseases and medical problems presents an interesting dilemma for society and those interested in exploring this technology. Before rushing into using this tool, the defining terms of this topic should be fully understood. The differences between adult stem cell and embryonic stem cell applications are significant, as are the moral and ethical implications that accompany them. In order to truly understand this problem, that distinction needs to be addressed before evaluating the technology's value in general terms.
Understanding the differences between these two areas of research leads to a stance against using embryonic stem cells for research purposes. The use of adult stem cells and the full range of applications that this more humane approach offers seems to best suit the human situation in today's complicated ethical landscape.
According to the Mayo Clinic (n.d.), stem cells offer great promise for new medical treatments and are defined as "cells from which all other cells with specialized functions are generated." This discovery has the scientific community excited about the many possible ways this technology can be utilized. Currently, there are two sources of stem cells: embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells. Adult stem cells are found in adult bodies, including bone marrow and other tissues. They are present in people of all ages and are often referred to as somatic cells. The evidence around adult stem cells is growing as new applications and health contributions are continually being identified.
The more controversial embryonic stem cells are derived from a different source. After a fertilized egg develops into an embryo of less than a week, it may be harvested for certain types of cells that display regenerative powers in damaged tissue and organs.
It is important to distinguish adult stem cells from embryonic stem cells in that the latter are taken from potential human life forms that have no say in the matter. The abortion debate is a close relative of the stem cell debate, as the source and timing of the beginning of life is central to both discussions.
Perry (2000) documented the immediate need for this type of research, presenting data on the number of persons in the United States affected by diseases that may be helped by human pluripotent stem cell research. The figures, drawn from the Patients' Coalition for Urgent Research in Washington, D.C., illustrate the scale of the problem:
It is clear that the United States — and the rest of the world — is affected by many types of diseases that stem cell therapies could help address, providing ample cause for this debate and the context in which it should be conducted.
The National Institutes of Health (n.d.) distinguishes between embryonic and adult stem cells in terms of their practical applications. The main difference is the ability of embryonic stem cells to produce far greater numbers of stem cells that can become regenerative and be used for healing purposes. Adult stem cells are harder to manage and require more intensive human maintenance. The extraction process presents unique challenges and is labor-intensive and expensive, making somatic stem cell research more dependent on funding and other resources. It remains unknown whether the success rate of regenerating cells differs significantly between the two types, but adult stem cells are demonstrably harder to extract and cultivate into a therapeutic form.
Either type of stem cell can be developed and used to fight disease in a variety of ways. Pardal et al. (2003) presented a comparison of how stem cells can be used effectively in treating cancer, suggesting that research could ultimately lead to cures and that "it might be possible to develop therapies effective against metastatic disease" (p. 901). Experts have similarly concluded that stem cell therapy may eventually become the most productive means of eliminating cardiac disorders. This technology is clearly useful and capable of contributing to humanity in a meaningful way.
When does life begin? That question must be answered before the ethics of embryonic stem cell research can be fully resolved. As McLaren (2001) wrote, "For those who believe the human embryo from the one-cell stage onwards has absolute moral value, equal to that of a newborn baby or adult, any embryo research is ethically unacceptable as it is tantamount to murder" (p. 130). Can this question even be answered scientifically? In many ways, life appears to begin at the embryonic stage — a fact made evident by the embryo's usefulness in regenerating cells in stem cell therapy. But utility does not determine morality. Just because something works does not mean it represents acceptable behavior for all of society. The fact that a course of action produces results does not excuse the broader moral and ethical questions it raises.
You’re 65% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.