Since the beginning of time man has been dragged down by illnesses and disease. We constantly fight the clock to find new cures and preventative measures to help society overcome obstacles like these. Diseases such as measles, malaria, cancer, and smallpox have killed thousands in their paths. These diseases and many more takes live everyday and not in a polite and pleasant manner. Death comes slow and painfully. But everyday scientist work to find new cures or at least measures to a diseases progression. Each time we can do this is a win for man kinds survival. 

 In 2010 man took a large step to fight disease rampaging through a young boys' body. Shortly after his birth, Andy Trevino, became very ill. Andy's immune system did not seem to be working and in turn he started to get rare infections of his central nervous system, his stomach, and his lungs. Born in Mexico City Andy's' parents, Mr. and Mrs. Trevino, were desperate to find a diagnosis but they were unable to find that at home. They wound up in Boston at the Children's Hospital. Here they were given the grave diagnosis of NEMO Deficiency Syndrome.  NEMO is a genetic mutation and presents differently throughout patients. NEMO was the given name because it is a deficiency of the, '"NF-kappa B Essential Modulator" and is also known as the Inhibitor of Kappa B Kinase gamma (IKK gamma). This protein is required for the activation of the NF-kappa B family of transcription factors, which regulate gene expression and the development of a number of organ systems, including the immune system. The complete absence of NEMO activity is not compatible with life." (Blaese). In order to save Andy's life, he need a bone marrow stem cell transplant but until a donor was found he was constrained to a regiment of 13 different types of medicine in order to keep him safe but not cured. The search for the donor came up empty, not even the parents were enough of a match to saves this young boys life. They found a match but how and how did they save his life?

We constantly face new disease and illness. So why not use every method at our disposal to overcome this fate of death and pain. Embryonic stem cell research is one of those methods that if allowed to continue may produce amazing cure for diseases such as cancer, Parkinson's, or even diabetes. Diabetes in 2010 was listed as the cause of death on 234,051 death certificates (National,07) and cancer on average kills 7 million people a year. Embryonic stem cell research is not immoral it is fact moral and those against it are immoral in not using every source at their disposal to cure diseases. 

This essay will contain a plethora of medical terminology, due to this here are a few key terms you should know so you are able to better understand the text. Embryonic stem cells (ESCs), are stem cells derived from the undifferentiated inner mass cells of a human embryo. Embryonic stem cells are pluripotent, meaning they are able to grow (i.e. differentiate) into all derivatives of the three primary germ layers: ectoderm, endoderm and mesoderm. Adult stem cells are undifferentiated cells, found throughout the body after development, that multiply by cell division to replenish dying cells and regenerate damaged tissues. Induced-pluripotent stem cells (IPSCs) are adult stem cells that have been genetically altered to behave like embryonic stem cells. Somatic cells are any cell from the human body, except sperm and egg. 

As just explained there are three types of stem cells that can be used for stem cell research. The question stands as to which type of stem cell is the best method or if there is a need for multiple types. To answer this question most people knock it down to a question of morals. Which stem cell research type is more morally accepted. For most, religious and some non-religious affiliates, this is a simple question. They claim the use of an unborn human life is immoral and should not take place. The counter claim to that is that it is morally acceptable because we are using one life or sometimes not even a life to save another life or to cure thousands from disease. When does human life begin and how do we know if it has begun? Embryonic stem cell research is not immoral and there is no scientific way to prove that it is. It is immoral based on beliefs not facts. 

So when does the line between human and mass of cells show? Most are not sure and this is understandable for science can not tell us exactly when a mass of cells is a human life capable of feeling and or in possession of a soul. Guido de Wert and Christine Mummery (674), say in order to talk about whether human embryonic stem cells are human we have to look at the ICM (inner cell mass). This they claim is the "'essence' of the pre-implantation embryo, the precursor of the 'embryo proper'". This says that although they are basically what is used to produce a fetus in a womb they do not have the potential to become a "fetus and child". This is due to the lack of "trophoblast cells, necessary for implantation and nourishment of the embryo, and extra-embryonic endoderm." These ICMs are where we derive the line of cells used for human embryonic stem cell research. So the fact that ICMs do not have the potential to develop into a fetus makes the cells derived from it also unable to develop into a fetus. But this fact is still argued. Those just completely against this research based on morals still say that although human embryonic stem cells can not develop into a fetus by themselves if they were put in, "'built into', a cellular background able to make extra-embryonic tissues necessary for implantation and nutrition of the embryo" they would then have that potential. But this is not scientifically correct. It is only possible through "'embryo reconstruction' where the ICM of an existing embryo is then replaced by embryonic stem cells. Thus just one continuing circle of non-life into very miniscule possibility of life and bac again to non-life. Also these commenters say that any cell that has the slightest chance, (only through very high technological science) of being a human should be regarded as an embryo or thus a fetus. But then are we not playing god? When are then using science to produce life. Also if this was true then we would have to regard even somatic cells as an embryo, because through nuclear transplantation into a enucleated oocyte is has the capability of becoming a human. 

Embryonic stem cell research is conducted using fertilized eggs. There are three ways in which embryonic stem cells can be obtained. The first method and the biggest controversy of obtaining the embryonic stem cells, is deriving them from dead embryos. Those against this method say that it is not right to use a dead embryo for science, it is immoral. But what is immoral about it. The use of these dead stem cells is just the same as obtaining organs from the deceased. The only difference is that while those deceased humans are able to give their consent because they have the capability to speak, deceased embryos are not able to give this same consent (Steinbock). But why should that stop us from using them to help save countless other lives? 

The second way to obtain embryonic stem cells is through non-harmful biopsy. Through this method stem cells are extracted from a single cell of en embryo, in a way that does no harm nor does it destroy the embryo, and with this one cell scientist are able to derive a line of stem cells (Steinbock). There is nothing immoral about obtaining embryonic stem cells through this method. No harm comes to the child in the womb nor is there any harm to the mother. Doctors use this method of biopsy to test for genetic disorders in embryos. Also we do biopsies of adults all the time and while yes it may hurt a little it results in no illnesses nor in death. 

The third method of obtaining embryonic stem cells is by donations of egg and fertilized by a sperm (Streiffer). But those against embryonic stem cell research still say that this method kills a human. But in-fact it does not. Fertilizing an egg in a lab and not implanting inside a uterus does not allow for a viable baby. The egg can only develop for, at most two weeks, out side a womb. No further development is possible and thus there is no life being killed just the use of cells. There is a problem that may arise from obtaining embryonic stem cells through this method. But it is not a moral dilemma. The dilemma arises from the ethics of the consent forms donors fill out. A review of these consent forms shows the lack of description on how their donations may be used and a way to opt out of ways in which their donations may be used. Why is this an issue when majority of the time donors do not actually read the forms in their entirety and more or less just scan them? Donation papers are for the benefit of the donor but are mostly to cover those who are using the donations. "The NIH" (the National Institute of Health) "Human Embryo Research Panel concluded in 1994 that embryos could be used for research only if the donors had provided informed consent for such use. The panel found that the consent process must provide specific information about the nature and purpose of the research, as well as any facts that a reasonable individual would consider relevant to the donation decision" (Streiffer). Therefore, these donor forms can be very lengthy but they are lengthy in order to protect all parties involved. These forms need to have very detailed statements on how the donations will be used, who can receive the donations (third or second parties), but most importantly there needs to be an allotted section in which all the ways that a donation may be used are placed and by each one a box to either agree to that use of the donation or not to. This last section needs to be done in a manner that makes the donor aware that this will not jeopardize their medical care.  In order to assure that these forms are correct and provide all necessary information to donors they are often examined by an ethics review board and are revised often due to new information and uses of donations becoming available. 

But these are not the only obstacles in which embryonic stem cell research has had to face or will continue to face. Another major obstacle that presented itself through out the beginning years of research was how the research would be funded. Should the government fund embryonic stem cell research or any stem cell research by use of taxpayer dollars or should it be privately founded from individual donations. In 1996 a law was passed that "prohibited the use of taxpayer dollars in the creation or destruction of human embryos "for research purposes"' (Supreme Court). Bush then later in 2009 allowed the use of "64 existing stem cell lines that were created before August 9, 2001" for federal funded research. But only 21 of those lines were viable for use by scientist. Since that ruling Obama has allowed 75 lines to be used for federally funded research. But on Monday, January 07, 2013, The Supreme court ruled to allow federal funding for embryonic research. Many lawsuits had been submitted before this ruling to argue the misuse of federal money in embryonic stem cell research, but now with the Supreme Court ruling all lawsuits have been dropped. Although ruled acceptable by the Supreme Court, those researching embryonic stem cells still face the wrath of countless people and organizations, who do are against the research. 

So why continue embryonic stem cells research with thousands of people against it? Embryonic stem cells have the capability of saving thousands of lives in the future, alongside adult stem cells. Stem cells are showing potential in saving lives. With this research we may be able to cure diseases that thus far we have been unable to cure and instead can only slow the inevitable threat of death. Do you know anyone who has ever needed a organ transplant? Even if you have not met someone who has has one or who is still in need of one you know that the wait list for a transplant is a very long one. Many people die each year while on this list. Timothy Nelson claims that through stem cell research we will be able to produce new organs in a lab that can be then used for transplantation into a patient. This will be possible through regenerative medicine a field that was formed through the combining of stem cell research and solid organ transplantation. Nelson states, "Regenerative medicine is redefining the future for patients with end-stage organ disease. It promises better, safer treatment at earlier stages and the possibility of cure rather than palliation of symptoms.". We are already seeing that we are able to grow organs in a lab with this research but in order for it to continue we need embryonic stem cell research along with adult stem cell research to continue. With out it this possibility becomes garbage. 

Even with all the evidence to prove that embryonic stem cell research does not in fact kill humans there are still those opposed to this research. They believe that embryos are humans from day one of conception and so making this research immoral because it kills human life. But where is the evidence to prove that these embryos used for research are humans? Are they capable of feeling? Do they have a soul? Non of those statements can be scientifically answered yes. As of right now there is no research to prove that they in fact are alive. This essay has given scientific statements that prove that his research does not kill humans. Klusendorf states that embryos are humans with stem cells while science has proven that embryos are stem cells with the capability of producing a human. He claims like so many others that human life starts on the first moment of conception. But he claims this through religion and through morals but he alongside all those like him have no facts or evidence to prove this. Klusendorf claims that the use of embryos for stem cell research is the exact same as organ donations from dead patients with out consent or even worse using organs from soldiers who lay dying to save other soldiers lives. The use of organs without consent is illegal. So according to him how can we use embryos to save lives with out consent? But he is leaving out a key ingredient to the mix. It is illegal to take organs from others to save another human life with out either their consent of that of their families (if they are dead). But those people are able to give consent. While an embryo has no way of giving consent. It can not speak or write and it can be argued that embryos obtained through donations are with the consent of those donors so therefore it is not wrong/illegal to use them. Lastly Klusendorf claims that adult stem cells are more effective at treating disease. But through research it is proven that both embryonic stem cell research and adult stem cell research both have their strengths and weaknesses. Each of them of capable of helping cure a disease or create an organ that the other may not be capable or that at least is not as effective. He based everything off of beliefs like all the others against the research. But you can not stop societal progression based on beliefs.

This essay is not meant to change everyone's mind and turn them in favor of embryonic stem cell research. It serves to bring light to the controversy in which plagues the progression of the research. No matter how much evidence one has to prove a point there will always be at least one person who disagrees with it. We see this in gay marriage and in the debate over the legalization of marijuana. Some one is always against the masses even if it stands to hinder the progression of society and the survival of man kind. 

Andy Trevino is proof that something good is to come from the research. Even if you are against embryonic stem cell research how can you be against saving a young boys life. Andy Trevino was diagnosed with NEMO Deficiency Syndrome at a very young age. In order to save his life he was in need of a bone marrow stem cell transplant. But the Children's Hospital in Boston was unable to find a donor who match Andy well enough to preform the operation. So the Trevino's, Andy's parents, were faced with a difficult decision. As devoted Catholics that knew that the only option at the disposal was against the beliefs of their faith. The Catholic Church is against IVF, in vitro fertilization; the only way to produce another child to match Andy to save his life. But how could they allow their only son to die. So they agreed to the only option available to them. They were going to conceive another child that would serve as the cure for their son. It took thirty-six embryos in order to obtain a large enough selection to create a child that could saves Andy's life.  Dr. George Daley stated; "There was no way to cure Andy without the decision of the family to have another child whose cells matched Andy's, and indeed by performing in vitro fertilization and selecting for the tissue type, they were able to have a child whose bone marrow could cure Andy." With the help of his new born sisters Dr. Daley was able to save this young boys life and the hearts of his parents. How can this be seen as immoral? Well it can not be. Saving human life is the most moral thing there is even if it is done through embryonic stem cell and its research.  Andy is now well and has two sisters. He is especially close with his sister Sophia, his life saver. 

