Stem Cell Research

For the Benefit of Today and Tomorrow

Stem cells are the building blocks of life. They are unspecialized cells with abilities that have
made them a great focus of medical research. These cells are able to divide indefinitely, forming
hundreds of copies of themselves. However, that is not a unique property. What makes them so
important is that within themselves, stem cells hold immense potential. They are categorized as
pluripotent, which means that they can develop into any cell of the human body; thus, not only can they
build an entire organism from scratch, they can also be used to develop healthy tissues or organs that
could replace damaged ones. In fact, scientists believe that in the future, technologies derived from
stem cell research might even be able to provide commonplace sources of treatment for some of today's
most deadly and incurable diseases, such as cancer, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. In 2005, 7.6 million
people died just of cancer. Stem cell research has the potential to save millions of lives.
However, there is a flip side to this. Stem cell research is still in its infancy, and possible
potential is arguable. The technologies associated with stem cells are only being developed, and many
questions are left unanswered. Just like so many other arising technologies, stem cell research is no
exception to controversy. The main debate concerns a branch of stem cells known as embryonic stem
cells. These type of stem cells are found solely in young, developing embryos, and they continue to
become an entire living being. These embryonic stem cells are also the most attractive to science, as
they are believed to be the more pluripotent and flexible than their counterparts, adult stem cells. In the
process of extracting embryonic stem cells using current technologies, the human embryo is destroyed.
Thus, a conflict arises between two big human morals- striving to cure pain and disease, and respecting
human life. Although stem cell research may lead to lifesaving treatments, hence appealing to one of
the two morals, it requires the destruction of human embryos, infringing the other moral. Many people,
especially those in the pro-life movement, which advocates for the protection of pre-born human life,
argue that such practices should be abolished due to them fundamentally devaluing the worth of a
human being. It is as if science has begun to use the human being as a tool to fulfill its purposes.
These arguments might hold position when dismissing the idea of somatic cell nuclear transfer,
which is the principle of cloning- such a practice does require the intentional destruction of healthy
embryos. But due to the still rather primitive position of stem cell research, scientists can benefit by
obtaining any embryonic stem cells possible. Scientists should not be portrayed as merciless killers,
seeking out prey, but instead as someone trying to salvage any cells possible that otherwise would have
been disposed of, and use them for the benefit of the future of medicine.
 Straight away, it is pointed out by many that there are alternatives to embryonic stem cells, and
why do scientists not pursue them? There are adult stem cells, which can be obtained without causing
any deliberate harm. These adult stem cells reside in many adult tissues and organs in the human
organism, acting as a repair mechanism if some new cells are needed; however, there are very few of
them. It is hard to locate them, and a difficult process to extract them. They are not as potent, or able to
differentiate into various cell types, as embryonic stem cells. Thus, these alternative cells are not as
effective and useful to science as their counterparts. Adult stem cells are difficult to cultivate and
manipulate in laboratories, and current therapies deriving from them do not always provide positive
results. Taking into account all of these flaws, it is clear that embryonic stem cells are the more viable
option to consider.
So the main issue that must be addressed is the controversy surrounding embryonic stem cells.
At the heart of this conflict lies one central question: when does life begin? Does an embryo the size of
a period at the end of a sentence represent human life? Should they have the same rights as fully
developed human beings? There are so many uncertain factors associated with these questions, that
there is no one true, absolute answer. Is there anyone with the authority to decide? Due to such
uncertainties in the fundamental question to the debate, it is a shaky topic, and it is left to the individual
to choose sides. To do that, you must judge both the benefits and harms associated with stem cell
research.
Starting with the more difficult one, the harms concern mainly the moral and ethical issues
associated with destroying a human embryo. But the human embryos used for stem cell research are
not taken by purpose. Instead, most of them are donated as spare embryos from fertility clinics. They
are created by in vitro fertilization, meaning that they have been fertilized outside of the human body.
However, many embryos that have been created that way do not end up being implanted; this leaves
many spare embryos, which either are frozen and preserved, or donated for the sake of science,
depending on the consent of the client. In this manner, if the donor agrees to donate the embryo, doesn't
it, in accord with all the potential benefits associated with the research, provide enough reason to
disregard the moral issues mentioned previously? A frozen embryo might remain in a fertility clinic
until its viability expires, and be discarded; isn't it a better idea, then, to instead donate an embryo for
research that, as an indirect cause, might save millions of lives in the future? It is the same as choosing
to throw a bottle into the trash, or recycling it- just with vastly larger potential benefits.
Furthermore, research on embryonic stem cells might lead to technologies that allow for
scientists to obtain more of those cells by using less destructive methods. Currently, scientists are
investigating several possible methods. These include extracting embryonic stem cells from
organismically dead embryos, bioengineering embryo-like artifacts, expanding the potency of adult
stem cells, and performing non-harmful biopsy to extract stem cells from living embryos.
Judging the benefits of stem cell research is a much more clear-cut path. Just the donation of
several hundred embryos and sufficient funding from governments or private enterprises have a great
chance of leading to a future in which almost any disease would be curable. Just in 2008, Spanish
doctors, in collaboration with British scientists, had managed to grow an entire section of a patient's,
Claudia Castillo's, windpipe (or trachea) from her own stem cells. In November, a successful operation
in Barcelona managed to replace Claudia's damaged windpipe with the healthy, artificially grown one.
She is now able to resume her usual active life, and stands as a living proof to the statements that
scientists have long been making- that entire organs can be grown from stem cells. Stem cell research
has already created a new dawn in transplant surgery, and has revolutionized its future. If that was not
sufficient, scientists are strongly asserting that in the near future, stem cell research will lead to cures
for diseases such as cancer, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases, spinal cord injuries and muscle
damage. This might alleviate millions of people from suffering, and many from a life-long disability.
Is it not worth a few undeveloped embryos that people have willingly donated to save
exponentially larger numbers of people in the near future? Are cures for diseases like Parkinson's and
cancer not something that humans have been intensively searching for in the past half century? So
when a possibility finally arises, why should we give up and try to pursue another path, if this one is
laid out just before us? Many useful technologies require compromises, in the form of energy, money,
or support. In this case, a compromise should not be spared. We must be willing to make a small
sacrifice for the benefit of the generations to come. We are one species. We must work together both for
the present, and for the future.
By Justas Medeišis, Grade 10
Bibliography:
 Figures:
 www.who.int
■ The World Health Organization: Cancer
 www.dailymail.co.uk

 Background Information:
 www.howstuffworks.com
 www.wikipedia.org
 www.aaas.org
■ The American Association for the Advancement of Science: Report on “Stem
Cell Research and Applications”
 stemcells.nih.gov
■ The National Institutes of Health: “Stem Cell Information”
 Issues surrounding controversy:
 ec.europa.eu
■ The European Commission: “Report on Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research”
 www.aph.gov.au
■ The Parliament of Australia: “Key Ethical Issues in Embryonic Stem Cell
Research”
 www.isscr.org
■ International Society for Stem Cell Research
 www.cbhd.org
■ The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity