Embryonic Stem Cell Research: To Be or Not To Be

By: Ashley Contreras

“All life is an experiment. The more experiments you make the better.” This metaphor by Ralph Emerson sets the fundamental grounds for research itself. But the attempt to gaining knowledge through research can sometimes go beyond the boundaries of ethics, this is the case with Embryonic stem cell research.  Using a a baby that is not even fully developed as research   raises the morality and legality of using embryonic stem cells for research. Embryonic stem cell research is considered promising in curing a number of diseases and disabilities. Embryonic stem cell research requires deriving cells from embryos that develop from eggs that have been fertilized in vitro—in an in vitro fertilization clinic—and then donated for research purposes with informed consent of the donors. They are not derived from eggs fertilized in a woman's body (stemcells.nih.gov). Although, the results seem promising the controversy of the research destroying a potential life still exist. Just last week federal judge Royce Lamberth issued an injunction putting a halt in the funding of the research. According to A Law in Time, an editorial found in Nature magazine, “Scientists, patients and others who care about the survival of a highly promising area of biomedical research should not expect the courts to act in their favour.”  

Many scientists have no choice but to wait on this decision, “Unless the injunction is quickly reversed, and unless the government then prevails when the case is heard on its merits, hundreds of experiments funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) will be crippled, and many will have to be abandoned” (Nature). On the other hand, there are scientists that are in favor of the injunction, and hope to see the research put to a complete halt. According to scientists interviewed for the Wall Street Journal article, Stem-Cell Plaintiffs Ethical Motivation, “work using material derived from embryos is morally objectionable, unlikely to yield cures.” James Sherley of Boston and Theresa Deisher of Seattle are both scientists that have been recruited for to challenge the federal policy. Having a strong religious background, they believe that they have a responsibility of conducting ethical research and that the stem cell research is nothing short of immoral (Wall Street Journal).  

The case is related directly to abortion and the US Court of Appeals is dominated by conservatives, which are more than likely favoring the injunction. But according to Nature polls, 50-60% of Americans, many of which oppose abortion, sympathize the funding for embryonic stem cell research. Dr. Deisher furthers her claim as a “radical Feminist” stating that embryonic stem-cell research is morally objectionable and unlikely to produce promised treatments or cures. Both scientists said research using adult stem cells, the field each of them works in, has more potential to help patients. They fully support the Dickey-Wicker bill that is present, stating that This prohibition encompasses all 'research in which' an embryo is destroyed, not just the 'piece of research' in which the embryo is destroyed, while Diana DeGette is working on new bill “notwithstanding any other provision of law” (read: Dickey–Wicker), the government shall conduct and support research using human embryonic stem cells. As is the case under Obama's current policy, the cells must be derived from leftover embryos at fertility clinics that would otherwise be discarded, and the donors must have given informed consent. (Nature)

Both articles depict both sides of the argument; on one side you have the Wall Street Journal article that has scientists, who like many other conservatives are not in favor of using embryos for research for cures that are unlikely to be successful, then you have the Nature article that emphasizes the potential harm to important research in progress by the injunction. This is a debate of morality based on opinion similarly to the abortion controversy, but unlike abortion these embryos are not destroyed to prevent a life but used to help save one.

http://www.nature.com.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/nature/journal/v467/n7311/full/467007a.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704791004575466081896678078.html