The human body's ability to repair itself is one of the most underappreciated regular bodily functions. Without this ability, cuts would never heal, colds would never pass, and broken bones would never mend. Stem cells provide and advancement to this process, allowing for specialized tissue and organ cells to be regrown. While stem cells have immense potential for future medical treatments and research, the idea has been subject to plenty of public scrutiny. Currently, the most popular method for collecting stem cells is the extraction of them from a few day old human embryo. While controversial, it is imperative that both sides of the argument cooperate to find a healthy medium. Stem cell research is the future of regenerative medicine so it should receive full federal funding, a proper system for embryo donation, regulations to keep research transparent for the public, and paired research dedicated to alternative stem cell therapies. 

Embryonic stem cells are the most known, and most useful regenerative cells to the human body. Residing inside a human embryo, these cells have yet to be specialized, or dedicated to certain organs or tissues. Quite literally, these cells have a blank slate, which is what makes them so useful to regenerative science (Heller 473). Through manipulation of these cells, scientists can specialize them to allow for regrowth in places in the body where regrowth has been slowed by age or disease. Research for stem cells, however, has several challenges standing in its way. All of political, financial, and public support are lacking severely. Without this support, this important research is being prevented from taking place (Solomon). During the Bush administration, several restrictions were put on stem cell research crippling any chance it had at progression. Opposition almost always appears as a conservative person or group, like the Bush administration was. On top of restrictions, Bush also cut most funding to research which then placed the burden on private funding (Kirkpatrick 408). While these actions were eventually repealed with Obama entering the presidential office, there is simply not enough private funding to sustain such research, so it is necessary that the federal government be on board. As well as federally, the US judicial system needs to set a standard for stem cell research and be consistent in ruling over cases about the research. Without clear lines of what is legal and illegal, a large gap is created between the researchers and the media, leading to false information, poor communication, and unregulated madness (Solomon). Lastly, there is growing public support for stem cells, yet many people who are pro-life or strong conservatives can be very reluctant to hear the benefits of the research due to their pre-existing opinions. Much of this reluctance is strongly tied to religious values and the definition of life. All too often these issues arise involving the separation of church and state. In the current state of medicine, and likely forever, research cannot please everyone. There are numbers of different belief systems and even more opinions, so one general consensus will never blanket over all of them together. However, if it isn't allowed to take place at all, there is no chance for advancement and the US will watch other countries leave it behind.

The goal with much of stem cell research, as Susan Solomon stated in her TED talk, is to make diseases currently incurable, as easy to treat as polio is today. In fact, "Recent studies suggest these cells may hold the secret to treatment  --  even cures  --  for some of our most baffling diseases, including Alzheimer's and Parkinson's" (Reaves). It is important to remember that hundreds of years ago people could die from the common cold, and now it's merely a nuisance rather than a threat. The more diseases that can be cured or treated, the more likely it is that our life expectancy will be extended. The United States has a reputation of being both a leader and a progressive nation always looking to make the first step towards discovery. The theories behind what stem cells can allow doctors to do are incredible, and it seems almost anti-American to protest the country taking these actions. Adult stem cells do not act anywhere near as well as embryonic stem cells do because they are just simply too old and slow to make a significant impact. If the country wants any chance of moving forwards, the people need to evolve with the times, and support the usage of embryonic stem cells. In the future, and what we are beginning to see, is the growth of human organs and tissues outside of the body. With this progression, eventually hospitals will be able to shorten transplant lists as patients whose transplant is not extremely urgent will be able to have an organ grown specifically for them. Continuing further with this idea, will all of a person's organs be able to switched out for brand new ones? The answer is not certain, but the possibility cannot be ruled out. Stem cells seemingly provide nothing but positive outcomes, so it's time to stop standing in their way.

It is imperative that embryonic donations and intensive research begin sooner than later so that diverse stem cell lines can be created (Kirkpatrick 409). Without this, there is no way to guarantee a universal treatment for diseases. Doctors have tried to use adult stem cells for these treatments, however they do not stimulate growth at any rate worth actually applying. Besides adult stem cells, other efforts have been made to treat these diseases with drugs, however, the drugs merely provide temporary treatments, rather than long term cures. Another possibility that has been brought about is the changing of a cell's specialization. This process involves scientists taking a normal cell like a skin cell, and either attempting to return it to a stem cell state, or change it directly to a different kind of cell. While this idea seems like the perfect solution for the stem cell debate, it doesn't work properly, at least not yet. Scientists have attempted this process, however, it has almost always led to a mutation that would make the cell function incorrectly (White). If this idea undergoes further research, for longer than normal stem cells, eventually one day we should be able to limit the use of embryonic stem cells. This should become a sister project of regular stem cell research, as if ever successful, it will settle one of the biggest issues surrounding stem cell research to date.

Another issue that arises as stem cell research rests in limbo is the number of United States citizens who are beginning to travel to other countries for treatments. In other countries around the world, stem cell treatments are legal, and beginning to lure Americans overseas (Lysaght 252). The United States economy is losing money because of this, and also putting its citizens at risk because many of these treatments are not regulated. The longer this issue is prolonged, the more likely it is that stem cell research and treatment will find a new home, and the United States will miss out on a huge opportunity. The United States has no reason to continue delaying research, as other countries are already beginning experimental treatments. When stem cell treatments are finally legal and safe in the United States, not only will people who need these treatments benefit, but so will the pharmaceutical companies funding research. Going further, research will progress exponentially and more treatments and cures will be developed, as well as alternative stem cell therapies as mentioned before. Eventually it would be expected that the tables would turn, and people from other countries will began to travel overseas to the United States for stem cell treatments. Undoubtedly by then the United States will have established the best stem cell treatments available. The United States has nothing to lose by increasing stem cell research and treatment, it's only a matter of when they will take action.

The argument against stem cells is often a very controversial and deeply rooted one. Most opposition to stem cell research centers around the use of embryonic stem cells. The embryo, being a recently fertilized egg, is the topic of many types of arguments, like the pro-life and pro-choice argument over abortion. Like those who are pro-life, people who disagree with the usage of embryos to study stem cells often find their reasoning in religion or in personal family values. These people often argue that extracting stem cells from a human embryo, which ultimately results in its destruction, is the murder of a human not yet equipped to defend themselves. This is where the argument over where life begins comes into play. In "Embryos, The Principle Of Proportionality, And The Shaky Ground Of Moral Respect" Jonathan Pugh challenges those who believe it is morally wrong to destroy an embryo. He wants to know exactly how an embryo, whose mother gives it up for research, has been disrespected. Pugh claims that if they cannot answer that question, they are wrong for using morality as their reason for disapproval. Pugh is not attempting to say that one is wrong to disapprove of the research, but if they cannot explain why it is immoral, then their argument, at least on the ground of morality, should be discredited.

"Where does life begin?" is a question constantly thrown around during debates over abortion, but has found a second home in the stem cell debate. One term that has been coined in the stem cell world is "potentiality" or the potential for life. An embryo has previously been described as having potential for life, but recent studies have stated that an embryo has not yet reached this state of potentiality by the time it is ready for stem cell use (Stier 26). While it is undeniable that these studies are likely biased to support stem cell research, it does make one question their personal definition of where life begins. Stemming off of that, a person can then begin to develop their own opinion on whether or not they think it is ethically sound to extract stem cells from a human embryo. Another interesting question is "Since ES cells can grow indefinitely in a dish and can, in theory, still grow into a human being, is the embryo really destroyed?" ("The Stem Cell Debate: Is It Over?"). There are many ways to spin the question, but ultimately it comes down to supporting or not supporting embryonic stem cell research. There is no correct answer, at least not one that will be agreed on, but for the purpose of furthering stem cell research, an embryo does not have life or potentiality for that matter.

Receiving embryos for research is not always an easy process, as the creation of embryos solely for research is illegal ("The Stem Cell Debate: Is It Over?"). Instead, all embryos must be donated by mothers who do not wish to have a child. Another issue that comes into play is creating an incentive to donate. While the word donation itself implies "voluntarily", some embryo donors are compensated for it. In "Can Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research Escape Its Troubled History?" author Lisa Ikemoto describes three different stem cell research centers accepting donations. These research centers were located in Oregon, California, and New York, yet they all share one thing in common. All women who donated their embryos were compensated for reasons such as discomfort and inconvenience. While it is morally wrong to pay a woman to give up her embryo, it seems common place in the stem cell community. Unfortunately, that's not the only problem that plagues these research centers. In certain situations, data was falsely reported, yet went unpunished due to the large gap between researchers and the public eye. For example, " ... while Hwang claimed his team had used 400 donated oocytes, the research had in fact used more than 2,221 oocytes" (Ikemoto 8). In order for stem cell research to take place, there should be strict regulations involving the non-compensation of donors and the reporting of correct, untampered data. Those who oppose stem cell research because of facilitates like those described above are absolutely in the right. There needs to be a high level of trust and communication between the government, research facilities, and the public before any research takes place. 

The United States is a very wealthy country, and much of what each day has to do with revolves around the nation's economy. Some people believe that the United States is trying to profit off of stem cell research (Lysaght 252). When stem cell therapies are fully developed and ready for use, they will work to save the lives of millions of people, as well improve the lives of millions of others. To suggest that the United States is merely trying to profit off of this research is absurd. While it may bring foreigners to the United States for treatment, stem cell therapies will not function any differently than vaccines and cures that have been discovered in the past. Without those discoveries, a number of people's bloodlines may have ended generations ago. Eventually stem cell therapies will be available worldwide and will revolutionize the world of medicine. Those who oppose such an amazing feat are most likely a very small group and their opinions are likely to change when a loved one of theirs needs a stem cell treatment to keep them alive.

Stem cell research has been around for quite a while, but it has a long history of having obstacles throw in its way. Having finally found its footholds during the Obama administration, stem cell research looks towards a bright future in medical science. Despite opposition from many angles, it is necessary to continue the research as there is an overwhelming number of uses for stem cells. Soon diseases like Parkinson's and Alzheimer's may be a thing of the past as scientists believe stem cells could be used to treat these two, and many more diseases. With proper care and professional researches, stem cell treatments may find their way into the medical world sooner than later. Stem cell research is at the forefront of science, so with full federal funding, strict regulations, transparency for the public, and alternative research, stem cells will change the world for the better, and nobody will argue about it then.

