Stem Cell Research: Benefits, Debates, and the Path Forward

Introduction: A Debate With High Stakes

For the last several years, debates around stem cell research have raged with emotions running high. Those who oppose it marshal their reasons and present them with fervor, while proponents throw their own arguments into the mix. It is an international debate in which nations are drawing lines in the sand and taking sides either for or against the issue. It does not appear to be a debate that will be settled any time soon — which is unfortunate, because the research could progress much more quickly if political considerations were removed.

Stem cell research holds promise to revolutionize the medical community. The breadth and scope of its potential applications are seemingly endless, and it offers hope for the future in ways the world had never imagined possible before. With millions of people worldwide waiting for transplants that will never arrive in time, children dying daily from cancers that cannot be cured, and immune system disorders that shorten lifespans by decades rather than years, the promise of stem cell research is a shining light (Connor, p. 8).

As the debates continue, it is important that the world find a way to support the research while working to educate the public about what stem cell research is — and what it is not. Education will be the key that opens the door for the research. When people realize it is not going to produce clones walking out of laboratories and into the streets, but will instead offer hope to millions of otherwise hopeless medical patients, public support will grow, funding will increase, and the world will cross a new threshold toward a better quality of life.

The child who is cured of cancer may grow up to find a cure for AIDS; the grandfather whose immune system is strengthened may raise his grandchildren after their parents die suddenly; the woman who someday receives a new pancreas, thanks to stem cell research, may go on to lead a national organization that saves thousands of abused or neglected children. Stem cell research is not about creating new people — it is about maintaining the life and productivity of the people who are already here, much as the invention of antibiotics and insulin did at their own debuts.

What Is the Need?

In the last three decades, medical science has made progress that allows people to live longer than ever before. For the most part, that lengthened lifespan has included a higher quality of life than prior generations enjoyed. While longer life and higher quality of life are positive medical accomplishments, they have also produced unintended negative consequences (Capell, p. 85).

With people living longer than before, several areas of medical science are being negatively affected. Transplant patients are at the top of the list. They often die while waiting for a suitable donor to become available. Nobody likes to acknowledge that allowing people to live longer means fewer potential donors, but in basic terms that is exactly what happens. Because medicine can now treat so many conditions — from accidents to illness — that it could not treat before, the donor pool is older and less available than in past years.

Another area of negative impact is that those who become ill or are injured are increasingly being kept alive even through prolonged suffering. It is a phenomenon generating many controversies, and as the population continues to age it will remain a persistent problem. Those who become ill are often treated with enough medical knowledge to survive, but the medical community cannot always restore their full health. These are just two of the reasons that stem cell research needs to be supported and allowed to continue worldwide.

Refusing to allow the research to continue, as the world's population ages, will cause conflicts in patient care and quality-of-life issues in the future. Some of those problems are already surfacing, as well-known celebrities are able to receive transplants with little wait while ordinary people die on the waiting list. The ability to continue stem cell research may alleviate many of these issues in the future and save lives that would otherwise be lost (Wang, p. 70).

The Plan for Moving Forward

The idea is to move forward while politicians play out the drama. This can be accomplished by constantly working to educate the public and by keeping research focused on saving lives rather than creating them (U.S. Dept. of HHS). There are many exciting breakthroughs occurring in stem cell research currently that show great promise across a wide range of medical needs. This is the aspect of stem cell research that must be explained to the public as often as necessary to build support.

Scientists have discovered that young, undifferentiated cells show the most promise for patients in need. At this stage, a cell can be directed to take many different paths, including producing different tissues such as skin, blood, and organs (Merry, p. 89). This ability requires further research because it may hold the answer to the well-publicized transplant shortage. If scientists are allowed to continue research on these cells, it may eventually be possible to produce needed tissues and organs without relying on donors at all. This would transform the experience of transplant patients, eliminating the current reality of emergency procedures performed in the final hours of a patient's life — when surgical risk is highest and prospects for full recovery are lowest. Being able to produce organs through stem cell research would allow patients to schedule surgery when a transplant is first determined to be necessary and when they are in optimal condition to withstand the procedure.

Stem cells are currently used in patients who must undergo chemotherapy or radiation as part of their treatment. In these cases, cells are removed from the patient prior to treatment; the patient then waits for their body to restore those cells to normal levels. After chemotherapy or radiation — which destroys not only targeted cancerous cells but also healthy blood cells — the stem cells are injected back into the patient. These cells help the patient's immune system recover from the treatment's devastating effects on their blood cell count. A significant advantage of neural stem cells, in particular, is that they can be propagated indefinitely in a laboratory culture.

The basic premise of the plan is to encourage public support for the idea while encouraging private entities to fund it. This would reduce the influence of politicians over the debate and lessen the impact of public opinion on its outcome. This does not mean the public should be ignored — on the contrary, the public should be educated at every step, with positive developments presented as research uncovers them.

Conclusion: Education as the Key

There was a time when people believed seizures were demonic possessions of those experiencing them. Eventually the public learned better, and it is the same scenario with the stem cell research debate. The public will come around, and when it does, politicians will follow — but until then, the field must press ahead so that when public support arrives, the research community is ready to act.

The public will warm to stem cell research just as it has embraced past medical breakthroughs. Education, continued private investment, and a clear focus on the life-saving potential of the science rather than its most controversial aspects will together create the conditions for broader acceptance. Stem cell research is not about making new people — it is about maintaining the lives and productivity of the people who are already here. When that message is clearly understood, the future for this field of medicine will indeed look bright.

Works Cited

Bookman, Jay. "Divided over Stem Cells: The Escalating Debate over the Potential of Using Human Embryos in Treating a Variety of Diseases Pits Medical Researchers against Right-to-Life Groups." The Atlanta Journal and Constitution, 8 July 2001, p. D1.

Broadway, Bill. "Faith Is a Force on Both Sides of Stem Cell Debate; Religious Communities Split Sharply on Permitting Embryonic Research." The Washington Post, 4 Aug. 2001, p. B09.

Capell, Kerry. "Science & Technology: Stem Cells: At Risk: A Golden Opportunity in Biotech." Business Week, 10 Sept. 2001, p. 85.

Connor, Steve. "The Miracle Cure with a Catch." Independent, 11 Aug. 2000, p. 8.

Johnson, Aaron. "Wash U.-St. Louis Professor Discusses Stem Cell Research." University Wire, 6 Sept. 2001.

Merry, Tom. "Student's Research May Herald New Understanding of Stem Cells." University Wire, 3 Feb. 1999, p. 89.

Munro, Neil. "Science: A Debate That Stems from Human Cells." National Journal, 26 May 2001, p. 65.

Polgar, Paul. "Who Is Funding Stem Cell Research?" University Wire, 8 Oct. 2001, p. 15.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. "Fact Sheet on Stem Cell Research." M2 PressWIRE, 1 Feb. 1999.

Wang, A. S. "MIT President Joins Other University Heads in Supporting Stem Cell Research." University Wire, 11 Apr. 2001, p. 70.