argumentative essay stem cell research

Pros & Cons of Embryonic Stem Cell Research

• Liberal Voices and Events
• The U. S. Government
• U.S. Foreign Policy
• U.S. Conservative Politics
• Women's Issues
• Civil Liberties
• The Middle East
• Race Relations
• Immigration
• Crime & Punishment
• Canadian Government
• Understanding Types of Government
• M.B.A., California State University, Long Beach
• B.A., Journalism and Nonfiction Writing, University of California, Los Angeles

On March 9, 2009, President Barack Obama lifted, by Executive Order , the Bush administration's eight-year ban on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research .

Remarked the President, "Today... we will bring the change that so many scientists and researchers, doctors and innovators, patients and loved ones have hoped for, and fought for, these past eight years."

In Obama's Remarks on Lifting the Embryonic Stem Cell Research Ban, he also signed a Presidential Memorandum directing the development of a strategy for restoring scientific integrity to government decision-making.

Bush Vetoes

In 2005, H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005, was passed by the Republican-led House in May 2005 by a vote of 238 to 194. The Senate passed the bill in July 2006 by a bipartisan vote of 63 to 37.

President Bush opposed embryonic stem cell research on ideological grounds. He exercised his first presidential veto on July 19, 2006, when he refused to allow H.R. 810 to become law. Congress was unable to muster enough votes to override the veto.

In April 2007, the Democratic-led Senate passed the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007 by a vote of 63 to 34. In June 2007, the House passed the legislation by a vote of 247 to 176.

President Bush vetoed the bill on June 20, 2007.

Public Support for Embryonic Stem Cell Research

For years, all polls report that the American public STRONGLY supports federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.

Reported the Washington Post in March 2009 : "In a January Washington Post-ABC News poll, 59 percent of Americans said they supported loosening the current restrictions, with support topping 60 percent among both Democrats and independents. Most Republicans, however, stood in opposition (55 percent opposed; 40 percent in support)."

Despite public perceptions, embryonic stem cell research was legal in the U.S. during the Bush administration: the President had banned the use of federal funds for research. He did not ban private and state research funding, much of which was being conducted by pharmaceutical mega-corporations.

In Fall 2004, California voters approved a $3 billion bond to fund embryonic stem cell research. In contrast, embryonic stem cell research is prohibited in Arkansas, Iowa, North and South Dakota and Michigan.

Developments in Stem Cell Research

In August 2005, Harvard University scientists announced a breakthrough discovery that fuses "blank" embryonic stem cells with adult skin cells, rather than with fertilized embryos, to create all-purpose stem cells viable to treat diseases and disabilities.

This discovery doesn't result in the death of fertilized human embryos and thus would effectively respond to pro-life objections to embryonic stem cell research and therapy.

Harvard researchers warned that it could take up to ten years to perfect this highly promising process.

As South Korea, Great Britain, Japan, Germany, India and other countries rapidly pioneer this new technological frontier, the US is being left farther and farther behind in medical technology. The US is also losing out on billions in new economic opportunities at a time when the country sorely needs new sources of revenues.

Therapeutic cloning is a method to produce stem cell lines that were genetic matches for adults and children.

Steps in therapeutic cloning are:

• An egg is obtained from a human donor.
• The nucleus (DNA) is removed from the egg.
• Skin cells are taken from the patient.
• The nucleus (DNA) is removed from a skin cell.
• A skin cell nucleus is implanted in the egg.
• The reconstructed egg, called a blastocyst, is stimulated with chemicals or electric current.
• In 3 to 5 days, the embryonic stem cells are removed.
• The blastocyst is destroyed.
• Stem cells can be used to generate an organ or tissue that is a genetic match to the skin cell donor.

The first 6 steps are same for reproductive cloning . However, instead of removing stem cells, the blastocyst is implanted in a woman and allowed to gestate to birth. Reproductive cloning is outlawed in most countries.

Before Bush stopped federal research in 2001, a minor amount of embryonic stem cell research was performed by US scientists using embryos created at fertility clinics and donated by couples who no longer needed them. The pending bipartisan Congressional bills all propose using excess fertility clinic embryos.

Stem cells are found in limited quantities in every human body and can be extracted from adult tissue with great effort but without harm. The consensus among researchers has been that adult stem cells are limited in usefulness because they can be used to produce only a few of the 220 types of cells found in the human body. However, evidence has recently emerged that adult cells may be more flexible than previously believed.

Embryonic stem cells are blank cells that have not yet been categorized or programmed by the body and can be prompted to generate any of the 220 human cell types. Embryonic stem cells are extremely flexible.

Embryonic stem cells are thought by most scientists and researchers to hold potential cures for spinal cord injuries, multiple sclerosis, diabetes, Parkinson's disease, cancer, Alzheimer's disease, heart disease, hundreds of rare immune system and genetic disorders and much more.

Scientists see almost infinite value in the use of embryonic stem cell research to understand human development and the growth and treatment of diseases.

Actual cures are many years away, though, since research has not progressed to the point where even one cure has yet been generated by embryonic stem cell research.

Over 100 million Americans suffer from diseases that eventually may be treated more effectively or even cured with embryonic stem cell therapy. Some researchers regard this as the greatest potential for the alleviation of human suffering since the advent of antibiotics.

Many pro-lifers believe that the proper moral and religious course of action is to save existing life through embryonic stem cell therapy.

Some staunch pro-lifers and most pro-life organizations regard the destruction of the blastocyst, which is a laboratory-fertilized human egg, to be the murder of human life. They believe that life begins at conception, and that destruction of this pre-born life is morally unacceptable.

They believe that it is immoral to destroy a few-days-old human embryo, even to save or reduce suffering in existing human life.

Many also believe that insufficient attention been given to explore the potential of adult stem cells, which have already been used to successfully cure many diseases. They also argue that too little attention has been paid to the potential of umbilical cord blood for stem cell research. They also point out that no cures have yet been produced by embryonic stem cell therapy.

At every step of the embryonic stem cell therapy process, decisions are made by scientists, researchers, medical professionals and women who donate eggs...decisions that are fraught with serious ethical and moral implications. Those against embryonic stem cell research argue that funding should be used to greatly expand adult stem research, to circumvent the many moral issues involving the use of human embryos.

Lifting the Ban

Now that President Obama has lifted the federal funding ban for embryonic stem cell research, financial support will soon flow to federal and state agencies to commence the necessary scientific research. The timeline for therapeutic solutions available to all Americans could be years away.

President Obama observed on March 9, 2009, when he lifted the ban:

"Medical miracles do not happen simply by accident. They result from painstaking and costly research, from years of lonely trial and error, much of which never bears fruit, and from a government willing to support that work...

"Ultimately, I cannot guarantee that we will find the treatments and cures we seek. No President can promise that.

"But I can promise that we will seek them -- actively, responsibly, and with the urgency required to make up for lost ground."

• Pros and Cons of Government Healthcare
• The Obama Administration's Animal Protection Record, 2010-2011
• President Obama's Domestic Agenda
• History of the North American Free Trade Agreements
• The Top 3 Arguments for Gun Control
• Top 10 Must-Reads for Liberals
• 5 Reasons Why Obama Won the 2008 U.S. Presidential Election
• Pros & Cons of the Death Penalty
• Biography of Joe Biden, 46th President of the United States
• Biography of Julián Castro, 2020 Presidential Candidate
• What Are U.S. Farm Subsidies?
• Biography of Elizabeth Warren, Senator and Scholar
• Biography of Ross Perot, Third-Party Presidential Candidate
• Congress Members Who Voted Against the 2002 Iraq War
• New Challenges to the Death Penalty
• Overview of Teddy Roosevelt's Bull Moose Party Beliefs

Exploring the Potential of Regenerative Medicine: An Argumentative Essay on Stem Cells

As the field of regenerative medicine continues to advance, an argumentative essay on stem cells becomes increasingly relevant. Stem cell research has sparked considerable debate due to its ethical implications and potential for revolutionary medical treatments. In this blog post, we will delve into the complex world of stem cells by first defining them and discussing their various types.

We will then explore both the benefits and ethical considerations surrounding stem cell treatments. As you continue reading, you’ll learn about arguments for and against the use of these unique cells in medicine as well as regulatory guidelines that govern their application.

Finally, we will examine Total Stem Cell’s approach to regenerative medicine using bone marrow derived stem cells while addressing safety concerns and efficacy. By understanding these key points discussed in our argumentative essay on stem cells, readers can make informed decisions regarding non-surgical approaches to healing chronic pain.

Table of Contents:

The unique properties of stem cells, addressing ethical concerns in stem cell research, total stem cell’s use of bone marrow-derived mscs, regenerative medicine applications in chronic pain conditions, future potential of stem cells in regenerative medicine, frequently asked questions argumentative essay on stem cells.

Stem cells possess two key characteristics that distinguish them from other types of cells: self-renewal and differentiation. These properties make stem cells incredibly valuable for medical research and treatment purposes, particularly in the field of regenerative medicine .

Self-renewal allows indefinite division in an undifferentiated state

Stem cells possess an extraordinary property of self-renewal, enabling them to divide without limit while remaining in an unspecialized form. This property of self-renewal enables a steady supply of fresh, healthy cells to be used therapeutically for tissue repair or replacement in the event of injury or illness.

Differentiation enables development into specialized cell types

Apart from self-renewal, another crucial feature that sets stem cells apart is their capacity for differentiation. Differentiation refers to the process by which these unspecialized cells develop into specific cell types with distinct functions within the body. For instance, a single stem cell has the potential to differentiate into muscle tissue, nerve tissue, or even bone depending on its environment and signaling cues it receives.

This extraordinary capability makes stem cell therapies like those offered by Total Stem Cell , particularly appealing for treating chronic pain conditions without resorting to invasive surgical procedures. By harnessing the power of these versatile biological building blocks found naturally within our bodies, regenerative medicine aims at providing patients with effective non-surgical alternatives tailored specifically towards their individual needs.

Stem cells’ capacity to continually regenerate and diverge makes them a potent asset for medical research. With ethical concerns in mind, researchers are exploring alternative methods such as SCNT to obtain iPS cells without compromising moral principles.

One primary concern surrounding stem cell therapy is its potential exploitation of human embryos as sources for embryonic stem (ES) cells. However, advancements in science have provided alternative methods such as somatic-cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) for obtaining pluripotent stem (iPS)cells without resorting to embryo destruction, thus addressing ethical concerns related to respect for life at its earliest stages.

Alternative Methods Like SCNT Avoid Embryo Destruction

Somatic-cell nuclear transfer involves transferring the nucleus from a somatic cell into an enucleated egg cell. This technique allows scientists to generate iPS cells that are genetically identical to the donor without destroying any embryos. The creation of these iPS cells has been a significant breakthrough in regenerative medicine and has helped address some of the ethical issues associated with using ES cells derived from human embryos. For more information on this groundbreaking method, you can read about it on National Center for Biotechnology Information’s website .

Obtaining iPS Cells Without Compromising Moral Principles

• iPSC technology: Induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC) technology enables researchers to reprogram adult somatic cells back into their pluripotent state by introducing specific transcription factors. This process eliminates the need for using human embryos while still providing access to highly versatile and potentially therapeutic stem cells.
• Bone marrow-derived stem cells: As an alternative to embryonic stem cells, researchers can also obtain mesenchymal stromal/stem Cells (MSCs) from adult bone marrow. These cells have shown promise in regenerative medicine applications and do not involve the destruction of embryos.
• Umbilical cord blood: Another source of ethical stem cells is umbilical cord blood, which contains hematopoietic stem cells that can be used for various medical treatments without raising moral concerns. You can learn more about this process at the Parent’s Guide to Cord Blood Foundation .

In conclusion, advancements in science and technology have provided alternatives to using human embryos as sources for pluripotent stem cells. By focusing on methods like SCNT and iPSC technology or utilizing adult-derived MSCs, researchers are addressing ethical concerns while still harnessing the incredible potential of regenerative medicine through stem cell therapies.

By utilizing alternative methods such as SCNT, stem cell research can be conducted without compromising moral principles. Moving on to the use of bone marrow-derived MSCs in total stem cell therapies, these autologous treatments are safe and effective due to their minimally invasive nature.

Key Takeaway: 

Advancements in science have provided alternative methods such as somatic-cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) for obtaining pluripotent stem cells without resorting to embryo destruction, thus addressing ethical concerns related to respect for life at its earliest stages. Researchers can also obtain mesenchymal stromal/stem Cells (MSCs) from adult bone marrow or use umbilical cord blood as sources of ethical stem cells. By focusing on these methods, researchers are addressing ethical concerns while still harnessing the incredible potential of regenerative medicine through stem cell therapies.

Companies like Total Stem Cell focus on utilizing bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stromal/stem Cells (MSCs), bypassing any ethical concerns associated with embryonic sources altogether. MSCs originate from adult tissue and do not require embryo destruction; instead, they come directly from patients’ own bodies during minimally invasive procedures such as bone marrow aspiration.

Autologous Therapies Ensure Safety and Efficacy

Autologous therapies, utilizing a person’s own cells for treatment, have numerous benefits compared to other sources of stem cells. By harvesting MSCs directly from the patient’s body through a procedure called bone marrow aspiration , Total Stem Cell ensures that the treatments are both safe and effective. Since these cells come from the individual receiving treatment, there is no risk of immune rejection or disease transmission that can occur when using donor-derived stem cells.

Minimally Invasive Procedures Using Patients’ Own Bone Marrow

• Bone Marrow Aspiration: This procedure involves extracting a small amount of bone marrow containing MSCs by inserting a needle into the hip bone under local anesthesia. The process is relatively quick and causes minimal discomfort to patients.
• Mesenchymal Stromal/Stem Cell Isolation: Once extracted, the bone marrow sample undergoes processing in specialized laboratories where technicians isolate high-quality MSCs suitable for therapeutic applications.
• Injections or Infusions: After isolating the MSCs, they are then administered back into the patient through targeted injections or intravenous infusions. These treatments aim to stimulate tissue repair and regeneration in areas affected by chronic pain conditions.

By focusing on bone marrow-derived MSCs, Total Stem Cell offers patients an ethical and effective option for regenerative medicine therapies that can help alleviate their chronic pain without resorting to invasive surgical procedures or relying on embryonic stem cell sources.

Total Stem Cell’s use of bone marrow-derived MSCs provides a safe and effective autologous therapy that is minimally invasive. Regenerative medicine applications in chronic pain conditions offer promising non-surgical treatment options, which have shown positive results for treating osteoarthritis and other conditions.

Total Stem Cell uses bone marrow-derived MSCs for regenerative medicine therapies, avoiding ethical concerns associated with embryonic sources. By utilizing autologous therapies and minimally invasive procedures like bone marrow aspiration, the treatments are safe and effective without risk of immune rejection or disease transmission. This approach offers an ethical option for chronic pain relief that does not require surgery or embryonic stem cell sources.

Regenerative medicine is a rapidly growing field that aims to repair or replace damaged tissue by harnessing the power of stem cells. This innovative approach has shown great promise in treating various chronic pain conditions such as osteoarthritis, degenerative disc disease, tendonitis, and more without resorting to invasive surgical procedures. Total Stem Cell specializes in providing non-surgical alternatives for patients suffering from these debilitating ailments through their cutting-edge MSC-based therapies.

Non-surgical Treatment Options for Chronic Pain

The use of mesenchymal stromal/stem Cells (MSCs) derived from bone marrow offers numerous benefits over traditional treatment methods for chronic pain sufferers. Some advantages include:

• Faster recovery times compared to surgery
• Reduced risk of complications and infections associated with invasive procedures
• No need for general anesthesia or lengthy hospital stays
• Potential long-term relief from pain and improved quality of life

Studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of MSC-based treatments, particularly when it comes to addressing inflammation and promoting tissue regeneration within affected areas.

Promising Results in Treating Osteoarthritis and Other Conditions

Osteoarthritis is one common condition where regenerative medicine using stem cell therapy has shown significant potential. Patients who undergo MSC-based treatments often experience reduced joint pain, increased mobility, and overall improvements in their daily lives. In addition to osteoarthritis, other chronic pain conditions that may benefit from this type of therapy include:

• Rotator cuff injuries
• Tennis elbow (lateral epicondylitis)
• Achilles tendonitis
• Plantar fasciitis

Research continues to explore the full potential of stem cell therapies in treating chronic pain conditions, with many clinical trials currently underway. As our understanding of these innovative treatments grows, so too does the hope for countless individuals suffering from debilitating pain.

Regenerative meds may offer a prospective, non-invasive resolution for those enduring from osteoarthritis and other aches and pains. Moving forward, research into stem cells and personalized regenerative treatments utilizing iPS technology should be conducted to determine their efficacy in treating autoimmune disorders.

The possibilities for stem cell research and regenerative medicine are vast, with ongoing clinical trials and cutting-edge technologies paving the way for revolutionary treatments. In this section, we will explore the potential applications of mesenchymal stromal/stem cells (MSCs) in treating autoimmune disorders and personalized regenerative medicine using induced pluripotent stem (iPS) technology.

Exploring Effectiveness Against Autoimmune Disorders

Autoimmune disorders like multiple sclerosis (MS) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA) occur when the immune system mistakenly attacks healthy tissues within the body. Current treatment options often involve managing symptoms rather than addressing their root cause. However, MSC-based therapies show promise as a more targeted approach to combating these debilitating conditions by modulating patients’ immune systems to reduce inflammation and promote tissue repair.

• Potential benefits: MSCs have demonstrated anti-inflammatory properties that could help alleviate symptoms associated with autoimmune diseases.
• Clinical trials: Researchers are currently conducting clinical trials investigating MSC-based therapies’ effectiveness against MS ( NCT04573270 ) and RA (NCT03671155). Researchers are currently assessing the safety and efficacy of MSC-based therapies for treating autoimmune disorders in clinical trials.

Personalized Regenerative Medicine Using iPS Technology

Cellular reprogramming with iPS technology allows adult cells to be transformed into pluripotent stem cells, similar to embryonic ones. Using iPS technology, regenerative medicine has the potential to be personalized according to a patient’s unique genetic makeup, thus minimizing risk of rejection or adverse side effects. By using a patient’s own cells, researchers can develop customized treatment plans that minimize the risk of rejection or adverse side effects.

• Precision medicine: iPS technology allows for the development of targeted therapies based on each patient’s specific needs, increasing treatment effectiveness and reducing potential complications.
• Disease modeling: Researchers can use iPS-derived cell lines to study disease progression and test new therapeutic interventions in vitro before moving on to clinical trials. This approach could accelerate drug discovery and improve our understanding of various conditions at a cellular level ( source ).

The future is bright for stem cell research and regenerative medicine as we continue uncovering new applications for MSCs in treating chronic pain conditions, autoimmune disorders, and more through innovative technologies like iPS. As advancements are made within this field, Total Stem Cell remains committed to providing cutting-edge non-surgical alternatives that harness the power of your body’s natural healing capabilities.

Stem cell research and regenerative medicine offer hope for treating autoimmune diseases, such as multiple sclerosis and rheumatoid arthritis, through the potential of mesenchymal stromal/stem cells (MSCs) to reduce inflammation and promote tissue repair combined with induced pluripotent stem (iPS) technology’s capacity to generate personalized therapies. MSCs and iPS technology have the potential to reduce inflammation, promote tissue repair, and create personalized therapies tailored to each patient’s genetic makeup. As advancements continue within this field, Total Stem Cell remains committed to providing cutting-edge non-surgical alternatives that harness the power of the body’s natural healing capabilities.

What are some of the arguments about using stem cells?

The use of stem cells in medicine is a highly debated topic. Proponents argue that it has immense potential for treating various diseases and injuries, as they can differentiate into specialized cell types and promote tissue regeneration. However, opponents raise ethical concerns regarding the sources of certain stem cells (e.g., embryonic) and potential risks associated with treatments.

What are common arguments against stem cell research?

Common arguments against stem cell research include ethical concerns surrounding the use of human embryos, which some consider to be morally equivalent to human life. Additionally, critics express concern over possible exploitation or commodification of embryos, as well as long-term safety issues related to experimental treatments.

What is the debate topic on stem cells?

The debate on stem cells primarily revolves around their potential medical applications versus ethical considerations concerning their sourcing and usage. This includes weighing benefits such as disease treatment and injury repair against moral dilemmas like embryo destruction or commodification and ensuring patient safety through rigorous regulatory guidelines.

Finally, stem cells offer a promising and moral solution for regenerative medicine. Total Stem Cell has taken the lead in this field by utilizing bone marrow stem cell treatments that are both safe and effective for treating chronic pain without surgery. This argumentative essay on stem cells highlights the importance of understanding all aspects of this innovative technology before making any decisions about treatment options. As research progresses, it is evident that stem cell treatments will remain a viable solution for those enduring chronic pain.

Discover the power of stem cell therapies and learn how they can help you restore your hair, reduce inflammation, and improve overall health. Schedule an appointment with a professional today to explore these treatments further!

• Stem Cell Therapy
• PRP Therapy
• MLS Laser Therapy
• Hair Restoration

© Copyright 2024

WEB DESIGN BY VERSA DIGITAL MARKETING

Home — Essay Samples — Nursing & Health — Stem Cell Research — Stem Cell Research: The Importance and Future Potential

Stem Cell Research: The Importance and Future Potential

• Categories: Stem Cell Research

About this sample

Words: 880 |

Published: Jan 30, 2024

Words: 880 | Pages: 2 | 5 min read

Table of contents

Introduction, body paragraph 1, body paragraph 2, body paragraph 3, body paragraph 4, body paragraph 5.

• Journal of Clinical Investigation, "Transplantation of allogeneic stem cells improves survival of adults with acute lymphoblastic leukemia'"
• Journal of Neuroscience Research, "Transplantation of stem cells from human exfoliated deciduous teeth for bone repair: a preclinical study in a rat model"
• National Institutes of Health, "Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells"

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr. Karlyna PhD

Verified writer

• Expert in: Nursing & Health

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

6 pages / 2570 words

2 pages / 1059 words

2 pages / 891 words

2 pages / 994 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Stem Cell Research

Stem cell research represents a groundbreaking field of science with the potential to revolutionize medicine, offering new avenues for treatment, understanding disease mechanisms, and regenerating damaged tissues. This essay [...]

Embryonic stem cell research is a topic that has been widely debated over the past few decades. The research involves the use of cells derived from embryos in order to study their properties and potential for medical use. The [...]

In conclusion, stem cell research holds immense promise for revolutionizing the field of medicine. Its potential to treat a wide range of diseases, revolutionize personalized medicine, improve drug development and testing, and [...]

Stem cell research is a topic that has been in the public eye for quite some time now. It has sparked intense debates and controversies due to its potential to revolutionize the field of medicine. Stem cells have the [...]

It is a sad truth that aggression and war have always been a part of the human history. There has never been a time when the world globally has been in its entirety at peace. Unfortunately, a closer look at the events in the [...]

Adult mammalian ovary has been under watch for over 10 years now since it was proposed to home stem cells that experience postnatal oogenesis amid reproductive period like spermatogenesis in testis. Ovarian stem cells are [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• v.2(3); 2001 Mar 15

Stem cell research—why is it regarded as a threat?

The British House of Lords voted on January 22, 2001 to ease restrictions on the use of human embryonic stem cells. Researchers in the UK are now allowed to use early stage human embryos for therapeutic purposes, mainly to retrieve stem cells. This decision comes amidst a heated debate regarding the medical and economic potential of stem cell research as against its ethical pitfalls. The scientific, legal, ethical and philosophical arguments have been discussed extensively ( Mieth, 2000 ; Colman and Burley, 2001 ). In this report I therefore propose to take it as established that stem cell technology has great promise for the treatment of a variety of diseases and, indeed, that stem cell therapy may hold exciting prospects for medical advances in the first decades of the 21 st century.

What I wish to discuss is why the prospect of stem cell therapy has been greeted, in quite widespread circles, not as an innovation to be welcomed but as a threat to be resisted. In part, this is the characteristic reaction of Luddites, who regard all technological innovation as threatening and look back nostalgically to a fictitious, golden, pre-industrial past. There are, however, also serious arguments that have been made against stem cell research; and it is these that I would like to discuss.

Stem cell technologies would be very expensive and available only to rich countries and to rich people

It is indisputable that most novel medical technologies are expensive. However, they usually get cheaper as the scale on which they are used increases. A good example is bone marrow transplantation, which initially was extremely expensive. A few decades later, bone marrow transplantation has become a routine procedure that is cheap enough to be used for the treatment of numerous diseases. The same will certainly happen with other therapeutics—be it β-interferon to treat multiple sclerosis, protease inhibitors to block HIV or monoclonal antibodies to target cancer cells. These agents are very expensive now because the cost of their development, testing and production has to be met, but they will rapidly become cheaper as more patients are treated, as the manufacturing process becomes more efficient and as patents expire.

There is, however, a further argument against this particular threat. One of the major financial problems of health care since World War II has been that major advances in clinical research resulted in ways of controlling diseases rather than curing them. The elderly and many chronically ill people in the First World now live a life of high quality. But this depends on the long-term administration of drugs to treat a number of conditions including high blood pressure, diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis and asthma. Consequently, the cost of health care in these countries has dramatically increased over the last few decades. Even for diseases such as Parkinson’s disease that cannot be adequately controlled, continuous therapy is given over many years to relieve symptoms. Stem cell therapy may indeed lead to cures for many ailments. It may become possible to cure Parkinson’s disease with grafts of brain cells. It is also likely that diabetes will be curable using stem cell treatment. It may also be possible to achieve at least something approaching a cure for cardiovascular diseases by replacing damaged endothelial cells in the blood vessels or the cardiomyocytes in the heart itself. If these promises hold true, stem cell therapy might result in a reduction in the overall cost of healthcare as a number of currently incurable diseases are cured.

Stem cell research would deviate efforts from other health strategies

It is difficult to tell in advance what type of research will give rise to what type of benefit. The fundamental research from which stem cell technology originated came from studies in developmental biology whose utility could not have been foreseen. Furthermore, current research into the mechanisms of cellular reprogramming and into the growth requirements of different cell lineages will not only advance scientific knowledge, but is also likely to become of widespread value in clinical medicine.

These two preceding arguments are essentially economic. The following are predominantly ethical and should therefore be given greater weight. But before considering them, it is worth remembering Onora O’Neill’s eloquent warning against declamatory or polemical ethics at the Millennium Festival of Medicine. Ethics is a subject grounded in philosophy and religion. Ethics cannot be determined by polling people and asking them what they think is right or wrong and simply accepting the view of the majority. It does require support from logically and philosophically coherent arguments.

Interference with the genome involves ‘playing God’

This argument reflects the view that divine creation is perfect and that it is inappropriate to alter it in any way. Such a point of view is particularly difficult to sustain in Western Europe where every acre of land bears the marks of more than 2000 years of human activity, and where no primordial wilderness remains. Ever since Homo sapiens gave up being a hunter and gatherer and took to herding animals and agriculture, he has modified the environment. All major food plants and domestic animals have been extensively modified over millennia. It is therefore impossible to sustain the idea that genetic interventions for food plants, animals and the therapy of human diseases are a categorical break from what has gone on throughout evolution.

The proposition that any attempt to interfere with the ‘perfect divine creation’ is morally wrong is also not widely held by theologians. The following quotation is from Professor Iain Torrance, Professor of Divinity in Aberdeen (personal communication), on the subject of co-creation:

‘Creation, understood in the light of the trajectory of the incarnation, is not a simple act. It is an enabling: a process in which a created realm is brought to its own reality and enabled to be itself. I suggest that this may give us a charter for some acts in which we do co-operate with God, though it would be rash ever to claim confidently that any specific act were such. I believe we are invited to share in this activity of enabling, which brings the created world closer to perfection. We never know what perfection is or when we have arrived there. Art is a kind of creation of beauty and may in some sense act as an analogy.

I believe we have an authority to intervene, so as to heal and restore, but not to manipulate and destroy.’

Unfortunately, the idea of a perfect creation was adopted by the early evolutionary biologists who, understandably, were greatly impressed by the elegance of evolutionary adaptation. They therefore tended to replace a perfect divine creation with a perfect evolutionary adaptation. But when scientists began to study the molecular mechanisms of evolution, it turned out that there are only a limited number of strategies available to achieve adaptation. The evolution of many molecular systems demonstrates that adaptation is by no means a perfect process but very much a matter of ‘muddling through’. It is perfectly clear, for example, that no competent engineer would design a creature walking on two legs as badly adapted to the upright posture as is Man. If Man were really made physically in the image of God, it would be bad news for an immortal God.

There has been a desire among political figures as widely separated as Karl Marx and Adolf Hitler to incorporate ‘scientific Darwinism’ into their particular political theories. They have generally failed to understand the nature of the evolutionary process, particularly in believing that natural selection produces an overall, optimal phenotype. To give a current example, if the HIV pandemic continues unabated it will provide a very strong selective pressure in favour of those few people who lack the receptors—CD4 and CCR5—to which the virus attaches. One can imagine that, in due course, their progeny could become dominant in large parts of the world. However, there is no reason whatsoever to believe that these survivors would necessarily be particularly intelligent, beautiful, moral or have other survival characteristics. Furthermore, mutation of the receptor genes may impair their immune system’s ability to deal with other diseases. Survival of the fittest—an unfortunate phrase in any case—simply describes those who are fittest to survive under those selective pressures that exist at any one time.

The idea of ‘playing God’ also carries with it the proposition that there is knowledge that may be too dangerous for mankind to know. This is an entirely pernicious proposition, which finds few defenders in modern democratic societies. On the other hand, there is a general agreement that there are things which should not be done—in science as in other areas of life. In the context of stem cell research, this may be summed up by Kant’s injunction that ‘humanity is to be treated as an end in itself’. The intention of stem cell research is to produce treatments for human diseases. It is difficult not to regard this as a worthy end, and more difficult to see that there could be any moral objection to curing the sick, as demanded by the Hippocratic oath.

Somatic cell nuclear transfer is immoral as it involves creating embryos only to destroy them

The essential problem here is to decide at what stage of development a human embryo acquires the interests—and the rights to protect these interests—that characterize a human being, i.e. when does an embryo become part of humanity? This is a problem that has occupied a great deal of theological and philosophical attention and the arguments have been extensively discussed ( Dunstan, 1990 ; Dunstan and Seller, 1988 ).

One principal condition is regarded as sufficient to confer interests and the right to defend them—sentience. In this context, sentience is neither the ability to think—which is in any case very difficult to define—nor is it the ability to feel pain. Sentience is defined as the ability to form any links with the outside world. Until an organism has a rudimentary central nervous system and some sense receptors—be it for pain, touch, smell, taste, sight or sound—it cannot form any contact with the outside world and therefore is not sentient. It therefore does not seem possible to attribute sentience to a pre-implantation embryo, or indeed even to an implanted embryo until it has developed some form of nervous system and sense organs. Along the same line, we now universally accept that a human being is dead when no contact with the outside world can be demonstrated by central nervous function. Certainly, death is regarded as having occurred well before every individual cell of the body has died.

The medieval church took the view that an embryo acquired a soul, or it became animatus , at the same time that it became formatus , i.e. when it acquired recognisable human form. This doctrine was derived from Aristotle who curiously believed males to become formatus at 40 days, whereas females were not so until 80 days of gestation. The medieval church held that the abortion of an embryo that was neither formatus nor animatus was only a fineable offence; and it was only after an embryo had become animatus that abortion became a mortal sin. At the core of the refusal of the Roman Catholic Church to countenance embryo research is a doctrine by Pope Pius IX, who declared in 1869 that an embryo acquires full human status at fertilization. This may have been partly in response to an increased frequency of abortion but it is likely also to have been influenced by a desire to bring Christian doctrine into line with 19 th century embryology.

But women lose large numbers of pre-implantation embryos throughout their reproductive life. These embryos are not mourned, they are not given burial and no one says prayers for them. The intra-uterine coil, widely used as a method of contraception—though not permitted by the Roman Catholic church—is designed to prevent implantation of embryos and, again, is not regarded as being morally reprehensible.

Further difficulties for the view that full human status is acquired at fertilization arise from advances in reproductive biology. Somatic cell nuclear transfer does not involve fertilization and thus turns the Pius IX doctrine ad absurdum , since it makes it possible to see in any somatic cell whose nucleus can be introduced into an oocyte, the potential for giving rise to a complete human being. When reprogramming of cells becomes better understood, it may be possible to convert somatic cells into embryos without the need for an oocyte. If, ultimately, any somatic cell has the potential of being grown into a complete embryo and, subsequently, into a human being, it would logically mean that we should ascribe a moral status to every cell in the body—a concept that is clearly ridiculous.

The view that an embryo does not acquire the status of a human being until it is obviously of human form with a central nervous system and organs (as is the view of the Protestant church), or even until it is delivered (which is the view of the Jewish religion), is more defensible on philosophical grounds than is stating that human status is acquired at fertilization. Of course, any decision relating to the particular point in development at which an embryo acquires full human status must be partially arbitrary. There are other cases where there is blurring at the interface of two categories or where distinctions are made slightly arbitrarily. This is the case in distinguishing between plants and animals; in distinguishing between male and female; and in distinguishing between the living and dead at the end of life. But the fact that making distinctions can sometimes be difficult is not an argument for making fundamentalist distinctions or making no distinction at all.

Allowing stem cell research is the thin end of a wedge leading to neo-eugenics, ‘designer’ children, and discrimination against the less-than-perfect

Francis Cornford wrote in the Microcosmographica Academica : ‘The Principle of the Wedge is that you should not act justly now for fear of raising expectations that you may act still more justly in the future—expectations which you are afraid you will not have the courage to satisfy. A little reflection will make it evident that the Wedge argument implies the admission that the persons who use it cannot prove that the action is not just. If they could, that would be the sole and sufficient reason for not doing it, and this argument would be superfluous.’ ( Cornford, 1908 ). It is inherent in what Cornford writes that the fear that one may not behave justly on a future occasion is hardly a reason for not behaving justly on the present occasion.

In addition to this philosophical argument, one should consider that there are also cogent biological reasons for opposing reproductive cloning using cell nuclear transfer. This is a form of vegetative reproduction, a technique used only by plants and a few lower animals. The late William Hamilton pointed out ( Hamilton et al ., 1990 ) that primitive animals which have the opportunity of adopting vegetative reproduction have uniformly failed to do so. He argues that it is the challenge of parasitism that makes the use of sexual reproduction, with its re-assortment of genes at each generation, advantageous in evolutionary terms.

In fact, the use of reproductive cloning can be defended only for farm animals, where this technique may be the best for producing, for example, cows that are resistant to BSE or sheep resistant to scrapie. Reproductive cloning should not be applied to Man and its widespread use might be evolutionarily harmful. We are also not sure yet whether somatic cells used for generating embryos carry mutations that have the potential to harm later generations. However, this is not a problem when using stem cells for therapeutic purposes.

The Universal Declaration on the Human Genome ( http://www.unesco.org/ibc/uk/genome/projet/ ), which UNESCO hopes will be incorporated into national laws, specifically prohibits the use of genetic manipulation to ‘improve’ humans. Vigilance will certainly always be needed to prevent the misuse of this technology, but it is unlikely that the use of stem cells carries any particularly devastating dangers.

Eventually, an ‘immortal’ population could evolve and that would create its own moral problems

This proposal derives from John Harris who is sufficiently impressed by the promises of stem cell therapy to believe that we may have to face a population that can live two or even more centuries ( Harris, 2000 ). Success on that sort of scale seems a long way off—but it would be an accolade to medicine to have that set of problems to face!

I wish to close with another quotation from the Microcosmographica Academica : ‘There is only one reason for doing something; the rest are arguments for doing nothing.’ The Luddites can always produce a variety of more or less plausible arguments for resisting technological innovation. But without innovation we would not have moved on from the Stone Age to the Computer Age in only ∼100 generations. The present arguments for doing nothing are no more potent than all preceding ones.

• Colman A. and Burley, J.C. (2001) A legal and ethical tightrope. EMBO Reports , 2 , 2–5. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cornford F.M. (1908) Microcosmographica Academica . Bowes & Bowes, Cambridge, UK.
• Dunstan G.R. (1990) The Human Embryo: Aristotle and the Arabic and European Traditions . University of Exeter Press, Exeter, UK.
• Dunstan G.R. and Seller, M.J. (1988) The Status of the Human Embryo: Perspectives from Moral Tradition . King Edward’s Hospital Fund for London & Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
• Hamilton W.D., Axelrod, R. and Tanese, R. (1990) Sexual reproduction as an adaptation to resist parasites. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA , 87 , 3566–3573. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Harris J. (2000) Essays on science and society: intimations of immortality. Science , 288 , 5. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mieth D. (2000) Going to the roots of the stem cell debate. EMBO Reports , 1 , 4–6. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]