Stem cell research is a relatively new concept in the biology and medical field. This field of study roughly arose in the 1800s when it was discovered that cells were the building blocks of all living things and they had the ability to divide into other cells (Murnaghan, 2016). In the early 1900s, it was discovered that some cells had the ability to generate blood cells but it was not until 1968 that the first bone marrow transplant was performed (Murnaghan). More intense research on the development of altering the physical cell started in the mid-1990s when researchers cloned lamb from stem cells (Murnaghan). There are two main broad types of stem cells being researched to this very day: embryonic human stem cells and human adult stem cells. Embryonic stem cells are undifferentiated cells that do not have a tissue-specific function obtained from very early embryos and grown in laboratory petri dishes (Leonard, 2016). These cells are pluripotent because they have the potential to develop into any cell, tissue, or organ in the human body (Saltzberg, 2008). Adult stem cells are cells that are tissue-specific meaning that the cells are specifically coded to duplicate cells of a particular tissue (blood, epidermis, etc.) (Leonard). By investigating further into stem cell research, one can see that embryonic stem cells are more efficient and should be funded more by the government. 

The study of how these adult and embryonic cells can be used for alternative purposes is considered important because of a variety of medical reasons. Stem cells can be used to test new drugs and therapies and determine what chemical compounds may be of medical importance (Saltzberg). Burn victims are a prime example of how these stem cells can be used for therapies when all immediate action is needed. When a patient has third-degree burns and requires urgent attention for life-threatening purposes, stem cells can be used to regenerate a layer of skin so that the patient is able to survive ("Types of Cells ... "). A major downfall with this procedure of using stem cells to repair severely burned skin is that the new skin does not have any sweat glands, hair follicles or oil glands which raises concern and demands more research to be done ("Types of Cells ... "). The promising potential of these stem cells for the use of repairing skin is crucial when looking at how many patients experience these harsh conditions. Second, stem cells offer an insight of human developmental events that cannot be studied directly such as birth defects, infertility, or even pregnancy loss (Saltzberg). Saltzberg mentions in his paper that stem cells "could prove a valuable source of transplantable cells and tissues for repair and regeneration, ushering in a brand new era of regenerative medicine." With this being said, stem cell research has already proved to be successful in treating patients needing bone marrow transplants as previously noted, but further research is needed to take stem cells one step further. In an experiment conducted in 2015, Holger et. al found that "[their] ability to produce large numbers of beta-like cells will further accelerate efforts in delivering a safe and efficient cell therapy to patients suffering form diabetes." This type of research is a representation of what today's stem cell research is focusing on: spinal cord injuries, Heart Disease, Retinal Disease, Lou Gehrig's Disease, Diabetes, etc. (Murnaghan). 

Although the topic of stem cell research seems like any other research in the medical and science field, it is actually a controversial topic with similar arguments to that of abortion. The ethical argument is derived from mainly embryonic stem cell research rather than adult stem cell research. As Anne McLaren comments in her journal, "for those who believe the human embryo from the one-cell stage onwards has absolute moral value, equal to that of a newborn baby or an adult, any embryo research is ethically unacceptable, as it is tantamount to murder." This argument closely resembles that of abortions because the researcher is essentially is removing the cells from the woman and taking umbilical blood cells which cut off nutrition to the unborn fetus. Contrary to popular belief, researchers do not obtain their embryos from early-onset abortions. In fact, after undergoing IVF (in vitro fertilization), the couples often have left over embryos that they no longer need. With this being said, the couples have the option of just letting the embryos die, donating them to another couple, or donating them for research (McLaren 2001). If they chose to let the embryo die than it would be supporting the ethical concern of murdering an embryo. On the other hand, this is almost never the case in which most couples reportedly chose to donate their embryos to research (McLaren). As Anne McLaren explains, "life is continuous  --  the egg and the sperm are alive, as well as the one-celled embryo  --  and although a new genetic constitution comes into being at fertilization, many people feel that moral value develops gradually." In other words, when the embryo is donated to science, the ethical concern gets eliminated because the embryo is transformed, not destroyed, into another living cell. 

With understanding the differences between embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells, an individual would start to notice that based on past and current research, embryonic stem cells are much more efficient and reliable. For starters, weighing the advantages and disadvantages of each would make for a great start when comparing the effectiveness and resourcefulness of both. For pluripotent stem cells (embryonic), they can be specialized to any cell in the human body, relatively abundant and easy to identify (Liou, 2010). The disadvantages of embryonic stem cells are centralized around the ethics of using living cells for research and the slight chance of immune rejection (Liou). Multipotent stem cells (Adult), on the other hand, can be isolated from the patients with no chance of immune rejection (if the cells are taken from the same patient) but are only found in limited number of tissues, scarce, and are difficult to identify (Liou). Now, with a broad glimpse of the pros and cons of each type of stem cell, it is necessary to break it down. Although embryonic stem cells run the risk of being rejected, scientists can further improve the quality and duration of stem cells once they fully master how to precisely and accurately duplicate stem cells into the cell, tissue, or muscle necessary. The disadvantage concerning ethics of embryonic stem cells is less severe than those of adult stem cells. Ethics will always play a role in scientific research because the government does not support research that comprises people's values and morals. The sole fact that adult stem cells are scarce and only found in limited amounts of tissue is crucial enough that the disadvantage outweighs the fact that the cells can be isolated and that there is no chance of immune rejection. If the stem cells are not from the same patient (which they always are not), then there is only one advantage left with using adult stem cells in which the embryonic stem cells can later develop as well. 

Stem cell research is revolutionary in the field of science and medicine but the development is a slow progression because the government does not fund much of the research necessary. In 2010, District Judge Royce C. Lamberth deemed embryonic stem cell research illegal under the Dickey-Wicker Amendment ("From The Hill"). The Dickey-Wicker Amendment "prohibits the use of federal funds for research that destroys an embryo" and with this being said, the National Institutes of Health's (NIH) stem cell projects were forced to shut down its human embryonic stem cell experiments and halt any grants or renewals ("From The Hill"). Judges Thomas Griffith and Douglas Ginsburg of the Appeals Court disagreed with Lamberth's ruling and claim that "their [NIH] investments in project planning would be a loss, their expenditures for equipment a waste, and their staffs out of a job" ("From The Hill"). The judges of the Appeals Court also concluded that although the Dickey-Wicker amendment forbids funding for destructive act of deriving an embryonic stem cell from an embryo, it does not prevent funding a research project in which embryonic stem cells are used ("From The Hill"). In retaliation to the above conclusion, the court overturned Lamberth's ruling. This overturning of the district court ruling allows NIH to continue their research but legal questions will continue to hamper the stem cell field. The continuation of government funding has led to an increase of about four million dollars toward embryonic stem cells each year ("Estimates of funding ... "). With that in consideration, the government funded 1.429 billion dollars toward stem cell research in total but 1.006 billion specifically for embryonic stem cell research ("Estimates of funding ... "). These numbers are crucial in the research and development of stem cell research because government funding offers immense aid in achieving the established medical benefits.  Although private funding is able to support a great deal of research, the government aid enables a huge number of researchers to pursue new, innovative opportunities (Kevin, 2013). Bill Mears states that "scientists have stated that government funding also facilitates easier communication between labs across the US and even worldwide" (Mills, 2013). Despite the religious and ethical arguments regarding embryonic stem cell research, the Declaration of Independence states that our government was established to 'promote the general welfare' (Kevin). Kevin also states that "considering the future possibilities of stem cell research, it is the duty of the government to pursue research of any kind with potential to help its citizens" (Kevin). Even though the numbers seem high for stem cell research, they are relatively small when comparing them to the broad spectrum of scientific funding. Hundreds of billions of dollars are spent from the government on scientific research including cancer, heart disease, brain disorders, and many more. Instead of the government funding heart disease, for example, the money should be put toward the physical cure (stem cell research), not the disease itself. If more money was put toward stem cell research, which is highly promising, then the results could be determined and applied quicker to the patients in need; thus, saving more lives sooner. 

All in all, stem cell research is full of many benefits that can affect individuals all across the world with existing diseases, injuries, etc. Some research has already proved itself to be useful such as bone marrow transplants. There is even some research that is seemingly promising of curing some patients with Lupus. When all is said and done, there are still some issues at hand regarding the development of stem cell research which include, but are not limited to: ethics, type of stem cells used and government funding. The ethics are a moral issue that affect religious individuals and those who are against abortion, as well. This is because these individuals see an embryo as a living organism that should not be used for testing in a research lab. On the contrary, the embryonic stem cells are not being destroyed as they are only being recreated into other cells. With this moral issue being held into consideration, determining what type of stem cell to use in research can be an issue all and within itself. There are advantages and disadvantages to each type of stem cell, embryonic and adult, but the researcher must choose wisely when determining which type is best for their research. All in all, embryonic stem cells are the overall best when it comes to weighing the pros and cons, which is why the government should continue promoting more embryonic stem cell research then adult stem cell research and eventually lead to a discontinuation of adult stem cell research. This being noted, the government funds roughly 1.4 billion dollars toward stem cell research which is better than what it used to be but still not high enough. The government needs to reduce funding of the actual diseases and put more funding toward the cure. On the Quora website, David Chan, an oncologist, notes that "Spending $100,000 to $200,000 a year to extend life for an additional three to six months may be very important to those individuals with cancer, but are a very poor return on investment for society" (David 2013). Dr. David is explaining that the money donated to the funds of different diseases and cancers are not entirely going to finding a cure but rather making the patients more comfortable. This arises an issue for future patients because instead of research being developed for finding a cure or improving treatments, the money is actually being spent on the people who are currently ill and want to extend their lives as much as possible. In order for the money to be most advantageous to society, the donations must be contributed to proper funding such as stem cells for the sake of prohibiting such diseases and cancers from flourishing in the human body from the start. The use of stem cells is the future cure of cancers, diseases, and many other illnesses that would affect hundreds of billions of individuals across the world. The only way that people can change what the money gets funded toward is by demanding that the funds be used for proper research and research only. With this in mind, the government should promote more funding toward stem cell research and specifically embryonic stem cell research. 

