This paper examines the multifaceted debate surrounding stem cell research, with particular attention to embryonic stem cells and the ethical, political, and scientific dimensions of the controversy. It explains what embryonic and induced pluripotent stem cells are and why scientists consider them medically promising. The paper then surveys competing moral positions — from pro-life arguments that embryos possess full human moral status, to bioethical counterarguments challenging that claim on biological and philosophical grounds. It also traces how the Bush administration's policies restricted federally funded research for nearly a decade, and concludes by reviewing early clinical successes, including applications for blindness, heart disease, and blood cancers.
The paper exemplifies multi-source synthesis: rather than treating each source in isolation, it positions scholars like Doerflinger, Hyun, and Montague in dialogue with one another, using their disagreements to map the contours of the ethical debate. This technique — building an argument structure from contrasting authorities — is a foundational skill in academic writing across the humanities and social sciences.
The paper opens with a scientific foundation (what stem cells are and what they can do), then pivots to moral controversies, political interference, and philosophical analysis before closing with clinical evidence of progress. This movement from definition → controversy → policy → philosophy → evidence is a logical and effective organizational pattern for an issue-based research paper at the undergraduate level.
According to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), stem cells are: (a) "capable of dividing and renewing themselves for long periods"; (b) not specialized; and (c) capable of giving rise to "specialized cell types." The remarkable quality of stem cells is that they can proliferate — from very few cells in a laboratory, they can produce "millions of cells," the NIH explains. Scientists also know that embryonic stem cells — derived primarily from embryos that develop from eggs fertilized in vitro, rather than in a woman's body — will proliferate for a year or more. The stunningly adaptive power of embryonic stem cells is that they can "differentiate spontaneously" to form "muscle cells, nerve cells, and many other cell types" (NIH, p. 2).
In order to expand the utility of embryonic stem cells, scientists are learning how undifferentiated stem cells become the differentiated cells that form tissues and organs. Induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) are adult cells that have been "genetically reprogrammed to an embryonic stem cell-like state by being forced to express genes and factors important for maintaining the defining properties of embryonic stem cells" (NIH, p. 3). Much more research must be conducted before science fully understands iPSCs, but already they are proving to be useful tools "for drug development and modeling of diseases," along with possible application in "transplantation medicine" (NIH, p. 3).
With additional research, scientists hope to use pluripotent stem cells to reprogram cells so they can repair damaged tissues in the human body — including heart tissue. When cardiovascular disease deprives heart tissue of oxygen, killing cardiac muscle cells, this can trigger a "cascade of detrimental events … leading to heart failure and eventual death" (NIH, p. 4). The use of embryonic stem cells to repair such cardiac conditions is an ongoing focus of stem cell research. Small studies have already been carried out in which stem cells are "injected into the circulation or directly into the injured heart tissue," and in several cases there appears to have been improved cardiac functionality — though much more research must be conducted before this procedure is considered workable (NIH, p. 3).
Stem cells also offer the possibility of a "renewable source of replacement cells and tissues" that could treat Alzheimer's disease, stroke, burns, diabetes, spinal cord injury, osteoarthritis, and rheumatoid arthritis (NIH, p. 3).
Richard Doerflinger writes in the Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics that a human embryo is in fact a human being — albeit one only in its first week of development. The embryo is one part of what Doerflinger calls "the continuum of human development that stretches from that first formation of a unique organism…" to the end of a person's life (Doerflinger, 2010, p. 212). It should be noted that Doerflinger is heavily involved in pro-life activities as an associate director of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops; his view of the embryo therefore emerges from a pro-life, anti-abortion perspective.
Doerflinger insists that while many researchers and scholars are "dazzled by the alleged potential of research that requires destroying embryos," there is a dramatic irony in embryonic stem cell research. Just as science has reached the sophistication needed to demonstrate the "wonderful complexity and organization of the embryo" and the "incredible continuity of the human being through all developmental landmarks," society is being driven by a desire for better healthcare and cures for previously incurable diseases to "insist that membership in the species is simply not enough to warrant our respect" (Doerflinger, 2010, p. 213). In Doerflinger's view, using embryos in stem cell research implies that society ignores the human potential of embryos, causing them to "count for little or nothing" and become "non-persons" (p. 216).
In his conclusion, Doerflinger uses the analogy of an addicted gambler to argue against embryonic stem cell research. He asserts that the passion scientists and policymakers exhibit to "justify stem cell research by demonstrating its benefits" is as obsessive as "the conviction of the gambling addict that if he makes just one more all-or-nothing bet," he can "recoup all of his losses and come out the winner" (p. 218). In Doerflinger's view, current stem cell research is not "the Holy Grail" for regenerative medicine (p. 218).
On the other side of the debate is professor Insoo Hyun of the Department of Bioethics at Case Western Reserve University. Hyun insists that "it is simply false to claim that all early-stage embryos have the potential for complete human life" (Hyun, 2010, p. 71). It is false, he argues, because many fertility clinic embryos are "of poor quality and therefore not capable of producing a pregnancy," even if they may yield usable stem cells (Hyun, p. 71).
Hyun backs up his assertion by pointing to statistical data: 75% to 80% of embryos created through intercourse "fail to implant and are naturally lost," often due to genetic abnormalities (p. 71). He believes the ethical controversies surrounding embryonic stem cell research stem from public "unease" about the "potential negative impacts of science on society." He refers to "dystopian fears" relating to human cloning, the "commodification of human biological material, the mixing of human and animal species," and the "hubristic quest for regenerative immortality" (p. 71).
In other words, existing anxieties about science overriding morality found a perfect focal point in stem cell research — the ideal controversy "to coalesce around" for the pro-life community (Hyun, p. 71). Hyun argues that the main "driving force" behind ethical opposition to stem cell research has been pro-life ideology. Pro-life opponents believe "for religious reasons … that all preimplantation embryos have a moral standing equal to all living persons" (p. 71). Conservative Christians and others in this camp hold that whether stem cells reside in "a fertility clinic dish or in a woman's body," they possess the same moral standing as any fully developed human being. Consequently, destroying preimplantation embryos during research is, in their view, "akin to murder" (Hyun, p. 71).
Two more recent developments have helped cool much of the heated debate over human embryonic stem cells. One is the "advent of human induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS)," genetically engineered dermal fibroblasts that behave like human embryonic stem cells (hESCs) (Hyun, p. 72). The second was the election of Barack Obama, whose administration proved "far friendlier" to stem cell research than that of George W. Bush (p. 72).
On August 9, 2001, President Bush issued an executive order stipulating that federal funds could be used only for those embryonic stem cell lines that already existed as of that date. This placed a significant damper on progress in this vital area of research. Bush was clearly courting the conservative Christian vote — he had appealed to that constituency during the 2000 election, and his policy was a form of payback (Hurlbut, 2006, p. 819). The New York Times editorialized in 2005 that Bush's actions were based on "strong religious beliefs on the part of some conservative Christians, and presumably the president himself" (Hurlbut, p. 820). By using the word "presumably," the Times subtly acknowledged that Bush's personal religious convictions were not entirely clear, while making plain that he was making a powerful appeal to evangelicals and other conservative Christians. It should be noted that Bush's executive order did not prevent private research funds from continuing to explore stem cell science.
The Times' editorial went on to state that "some convictions deserve respect, but it is wrong to impose them on this pluralistic nation" (Hurlbut, p. 820). Hurlbut quotes then-New York Governor Mario Cuomo, who described the situation Bush had created as a "religious morass" and observed that perhaps "millions of Americans" share Bush's view that human life "begins with fertilization" — including many Christians and evangelicals (Hurlbut, p. 822). But, Cuomo continued, Bush's position "remains a minority view" (p. 822).
Christine Todd Whitman — who served as administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency during Bush's first term and was the first female governor of New Jersey — supported embryonic stem cell research. Whitman noted in her book that shortly after Bush was re-elected in 2004, Christian conservative organizer Phil Burress was heard to say, "The president rode our coattails" (Whitman, 2006). Whitman argued that the influence of Christian conservatives on Bush's victory was exaggerated: only twenty million of the fifty-nine million who voted for Bush cited "moral values" as their most important issue — just a third of his total victory margin.
Author Gary Scott Smith examines the lengths to which the Bush campaign went in 2004 to position Bush as anti-abortion and anti-stem cell research. The campaign built a website attacking Democratic candidate John Kerry and distributed 300,000 copies of a documentary titled George W. Bush: Faith in the White House directly to churches (Smith, 2006, p. 377). The Bush reelection campaign also attempted to obtain the membership directories of 1,600 churches in the swing state of Pennsylvania — a move that provoked controversy because it "violated campaign finance and tax laws" that require congregations to remain non-partisan in order to retain their tax-exempt status.
By 2004–2005, a majority of Americans supported embryonic stem cell research. A 2005 poll found that "two-thirds of Americans approved of the research" (Burgin, 2009, p. 4). A bill designed to effectively overturn Bush's executive order — H.R. 810 — began moving through the House of Representatives. Its provisions required that embryos used in research must have been donated by fertility clinics, created specifically for fertility treatment, and destined for disposal if not used. These conditions were included to address serious potential ethical concerns.
After a full year of negotiations, the House passed the legislation on May 24, 2005, by a vote of 238 to 194 (187 Democrats and 50 Republicans, plus one independent, voting in favor; 180 Republicans and 14 Democrats voting against). By the time the Senate took up the bill, a Gallup poll showed that 61% of respondents considered embryonic stem cell research "morally acceptable" (Burgin, p. 4). On July 18, 2006, the Senate approved H.R. 810 by a vote of 63 to 37. The very next day, President Bush — mindful of his conservative Christian and evangelical base — vetoed the legislation. There were insufficient votes to override the veto, and the research tools that would have been made available remained out of reach for the remainder of the Bush administration.
There has been sufficient research and experimentation with stem cells to show that a wide range of medical problems can potentially be aided, or perhaps even cured, through these strategies. The fact that President George W. Bush restricted progress in stem cell research for political and ideological reasons over eight years represents, from this paper's perspective, a significant setback for science and public health. Nevertheless, President Obama subsequently reversed those policies, and research and experimentation have since advanced to the point where there is genuine hope for treatments — and potentially cures — for cancer, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, and a number of other serious conditions.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.