Every year millions of people are affected by an injury or disease that could be cured by stem cells. While we continue to boast the $300 billion a year pharmaceutical industry that can not cure or can only slow the effects of certain illnesses with numerous negative side affects, we criticize the science of stem cell research. The research could impact society greatly, if given the chance, by saving and improving countless lives while also improving the pharmaceutical industry, making it more effective and efficient. Stem cell research should not be shunned for immorality, but embraced by the people for its ability to positively alter society. The science of stem cell research has developed to such a point where it is a necessity to have it be legal and apply government funding towards it.

Stem cells are essentially the building block to the human body. The National Institute of Health says there are two main characteristics that define stem cells which are that they are unspecialized cells and can be induced to become any specific organ or tissue (http://stemcells.nih.gov). They can serve a multitude of purposes. They can be used in their early stages to grow into any type of cell as well as serving as an internal repair system. The cells can divide with out limit, as long as the cell is alive. Because of this property, along with the ability to become any type of cell, complete organ systems or tissues can be fixed or created which leads to millions of lives being saved. There are two types of stem cells, embryonic and somatic. Somatic stem cells are derived from adult cells that are reprogramed to act like stem cells. Embryonic stem cells are where the debate begins, these cells come from human embryos and grown in a laboratory. The issue with this is because the cells come from a dead, usually aborted, fetus. Although abortion carries much sorrow and is a moral and philosophical dilemma, we should not overlook the life altering benefits that still come from the science. 

This debate can not simply be argued by stating the facts for each side, since one side's main argument is centered around morality while the other's is based off of the usefulness and practicality of the science. There are two main arguments for the opponents of stem cells. The first is that they believe it is immoral to take the life of a child and second it is not right to play the role of God. I agree, it is wrong to take the life of a child who has done nothing wrong or has even taken a breath in the world in which we live. However, to utilize an already aborted fetus who would have been killed anyways to support a science that will save millions of lives should be permitted. Like Stephen Hawking said, the child will in fact die regardless whether or not their cells will be used for research. Would it be better for the fetus to be used to save a life or be thrown away, making its short existence meaningless? This problem can be fixed using other methods, such as the somatic adult stem cells, but there are still issues with this science as well. The issue is that there are a limited number of disease that can be cured and is not as nearly as effected as the process used for embryonic stem sells. Adult stem cells do not have nearly as good of an ability to become a different type of cell and is very limited in the diseases it can cure (nih.gov). So we are given a choice: Be "ethical" by not utilizing a dead fetus to save lives or be "unethical" save countless lives and use the cells that come from an already dead fetus. 

While this debate is not about where life begins, it can utilize some facts from that argument to support both sides. It is true, that a human embryo is a living organism, it will in fact be a human one day. Many proponents to stem cell research argue that a human embryo is "too small, too unlike us in appearance, or too lacking in consciousness or sensitivity to pain or other critical mental capacity to be granted a place in the human family" (Levin). The opponents will of course argue that it is not fair that we are defining their life's worth based off of their construction and appearance. The same argument can be made for someone who is being affected by a disease or injury that can be cured by stem cells. Is their life less important that an embryo who has no consciousness, no ability to sense the feeling of pain or who has never seen the world? A current living human should not be passed on to be saved over a developing fetus. Most people would agree, if they or a loved one was in a situation where they had to choose between the life of an embryo or theirs/ a loved one, they would choose the latter. 

Even though the use of somatic stem cells is significantly less beneficial than embryonic stem cells, there's still room for their use and with more research, progress will be made on their improvement. Since there are many moral issues now with stem cell research the use of somatic stem cells will solve the problem (Lo). While it may not be nearly as effective and issues may arise (physically) from using the adult stem cells, it can serve its purpose in the meantime, until it is accepted to use embryonic stem cells. But for that to eventually happen people must become more educated on the benefits of stem cells. 

Statistics taken from a Gallop poll show that only 19% of Americans who believe that abortion should be outright illegal. (John Oliver) With this taken into account the other 81% believe that under certain circumstances at least, abortion should be legalized. 68% of Americans believe that we should use embryonic stem cell research (healthresearchfunding.org). Along with that, 64% believe the government should fund the research. Many would argue that the saving of millions of lives would argue that this circumstance is very important. Therefore, there should only be a small percent of people who believe that stem cells from embryos is unethical because of where it is derived from. So why is there still so much negative attention drawn toward stem cells and with the amount of people who do support it why is it not legalized and funded? This is due to the sheer lack of education and first hand experience, we have no knowledge on the subject. This following example is from someone who has worked in the field and is very knowledgeable on the subject. Nathalia Holt was a researcher who worked in a lab at the University of Southern California. She described her day to day life and how while some parts of her job were gross (dealing with umbilical cords and placenta after a child was born) she was able to work through it, however. On certain days though, she would get a shipment from the hospital that contained organs form an aborted fetus. She described the overwhelming difference between the two, one being a symbol of celebration and the birth of a new human and the other being "the agonizing, heartbreaking decision to end her [a woman's] pregnancy". She describes the sadness that overcame her while dealing with these boxes and how much she hated. Based off of her description you would believe that she would be against stem cell research but she is not. "The choice I made is repeated every day, in labs all over the world. Researchers have no say in whether a fetus is aborted or develops into a human baby; those decisions are made by women and shaped by politicians. Yet their science, performed on discarded tissue, has the ability to save lives. It already has." She believes that even though abortion might be immoral and it is very sad, the fetus is not going to be trashed and wasted, it will be used for the betterment of society and will make a difference. 

Stem cells can also vastly improve the pharmaceutical industry. Naysayers will state that the rate at which our pharmaceutical industry is developing, there is no need to use stem cells (Prentice). This is not true, however, the pharmaceutical industry is highly inefficient. The average drug takes 13 years to test, while costing $4 billion. After all of this time and money spent only 1 percent of the drugs will actually make it to market (Solomon). In Susan Solomon's Ted talk, she brings up more ways that we can utilize stem cells to help make the pharmaceutical industry more effective.  

Solomon ended her Ted Talk with this quote, "It really has brought us to the threshold of personalized medicine. It's here now, and in our family, my son has type 1 diabetes, which is still an incurable disease, and I lost my parents to heart disease and cancer, but I think that my story probably sounds familiar to you, because probably a version of it is your story. At some point in our lives, all of us, or people we care about, become patients, and that's why I think that stem cell research is incredibly important for all of us." Statistically, almost everyone in the world can be affected by a disease that can be cured with stem cells. This is why it is paramount that we promote the research."

If stem cells were to be used, we could test the side effect of drugs in a petri dish that has different stem cells that have been changed into different organ specific cells. This method could help completely eradicate certain diseases, relieving the need for certain, potentially harmful drugs from coming to market. This would make drug testing much safer, cheaper and efficient. So now, rather than only saving thousands of lives, we save time and money, boosting the economy. If this method were to be introduced, at some point in every person's life, they will be affected by stem cells. 

Government restrictions are hindering the advancement of the usefulness of stem cells. While we already know a lot about stem cells, there is always room for improvement and if the government continues to restrict the science by either funding or legality, no progress will be made. In an article by Clare Dyer Court's Ban on Stem Cell Patents Will Harm Research, Say Scientists, she explains how in Europe the European Court of Justice ruled that a law can be instated that prohibits the ability to patent the process if it utilized a destroyed embryo. While we may shun companies for only being in the business to make money, it is unrealistic to expect them to be able to produce life altering products at little cost. If they are not allowed to patent their process, they will waste millions, if not billions, of dollars in research and materials for a generic company to produce the same thing with no research.  Austin Smith from Cambridge University says, "This unfortunate decision by the court leaves scientists in a ridiculous position. We are funded to do research for the public good yet prevented from taking our discoveries to the marketplace, where they could be developed into new medicines.". He clearly disagrees with governments decision because it is limiting the welfare of the citizens. Therefore, we should allow companies to patent their process so they will allocate as much resources as they can to the production of a stem cell related product. It is a win-win for both the company and society. The company can make large amounts of money while keeping the consumers healthy. Dyer has worked in the field before and admits it is very depressing working with dead, usually aborted fetuses, but also states that it is a necessity to support the research for the benefit of society. 

Stem cells can be used to solve certain social injustices such as animal research abuse. According to PETA, 100 million animals are abused each year as a result of laboratory testing for a multitude of medical and cosmetic products. This testing is done to prove it safety for human consumption by giving large amounts, usually lethal doses, to the animals to see how their body reacts. This process is not always accurate, according to a study conducted by The Journal of the American Medical Association proved that the reaction the animal showed rarely correlated to the reaction of a human and consumers should remain cautious of that fact. Here is where stem cells can improve the testing of such products: since the stem cells can replicate any organ or any type of cell in general, the drugs can be applied to a variety of organ cells created by stem cells to test the reaction. This accomplishes two things, 1) millions of animals will stop being abused and 2) it will make the products that we use everyday more reliable, safer and more effective. 

Stem cell research should not be a shunned science that we steer clear of for morality reasons. The death of an unborn baby is very sad, but we should not waste its short existence by using it to promote such a productive science. It offers life altering benefits for millions of people around the world and improve the standard of living. It can even benefit more than just humans too. The science can boost our economy while still maintaining efficiency within the pharmaceutical industry. Stem cell research is a vital science that needs to be fully legal and funded by the government for the improvement of the over all standard of living in our society.

