 Stem cell research has been thought to be one of the most promising fields in medicine for potentially curing several major diseases through disease modeling, drug development, gene therapy, and cell-based therapy.  Guido de Wert defines stem cells as “primitive cells with the capability to divide and give rise to more identical stem cells or to specialize and form specific cells of somatic tissue” (Wert).  Stem cells can be divided into two types: pluripotent and multipotent.  Pluripotent stem cells have the capability of transforming into any type of cell in the body.  However, multipotent stem cells can only differentiate into a limited number of types of cells and do not expand in vitro (Lo and Parham).  There are four kinds of stem cells: adult, fetal, embryonic, and induced pluripotent. Adult stem cells are multipotent, somatic cells found in tissues, organs, and blood in the human body.  Fetal stem cells are removed from aborted fetuses.  Embryonic stem cells (ESCs) are found in human embryos in the early stages of development and when extracted destroy the embryo because it can no longer develop, essentially ending the possibility of life. Induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC) research involves reprogramming somatic cells, non-reproductive cells, to form pluripotent stem cells. The unethicality of embryonic stem cell research means it should be abolished; government funding should instead be allocated toward research in adult and induced pluripotent stem cells.

Embryonic stem cells are the most widely used type of stem cell in research laboratories.  However, the ethicality of ESC research is widely debated since this method involves destroying human embryos.  According to Lo and Parham, “some people believe that an embryo is a person with the same moral status as an adult” (Lo and Parham).  This is a wide held belief within many religious communities, as they see human life beginning at conception (Meyers).  Religious groups are not against the progression of medicine, but wish to protect the lives of the unborn.  Hence, religious communities believe there is a moral obligation of society to protect human life.  Therefore, after the conception of the embryo, it is societies duty to protect the embryos from harm because an embryo is simply a human in a different development stage (Sugarman).  When the embryo grows and develops with time it will become a person, just like the rest of us.  However, when an embryo is tampered for research, the embryo no longer possesses the same sacredness.  Thus, all embryos possess the same moral convictions and deserve to be allowed to grow and develop instead of “poked and prodded” for research.  

On the other hand, scientists do not see these clumps of cells as people with moral convictions.  Instead, scientists believe that since the embryos used for research are created in a petri dish, they should be allowed to research and experiment on these cells (Murry and Keller).  To scientists, it is justifiable to experiment on the cells of human embryos so long as the embryo was grown in a lab.  However, the process of infusing oocyte and sperm together to form the embryo is the same, essentially creating life.  ESC research creates this life, scientifically, for the purpose of experimentation and destruction (Meyers). But since the embryo has no possibility of developing into a fetus without transfer into a woman’s uterus scientists do not see this as inhumane or unethical and feel these embryos do not possess the same qualities of life. Scientists do not view the destruction of embryos as murder, but instead as a necessity in order to advance both science and medicine (Murry and Keller).  The political inability to specifically define when life begins allows scientists to continue their ESC research. 

Currently, federal regulations do not allow research on ESCs past fourteen days, something known within the scientific community as the 14-day rule. Since ESC research began, scientists have been unable to grow cells in a petri dish for this entire duration of time.  However, new advances in stem-cell engineering have allowed scientists to extend the lives of their embryos (Zimmer).  This advancement will create new ethical issues involving scientists abusing embryos even further.  Eventually, once this fourteen-day point is achieved, a new milestone will be set, such as a 20-day rule (Zimmer).  Considering that each day these cells grow, they become more and more alive, allowing scientists to continue experiments on these cells past the 14-day point is unethical.  Also, once scientists have the ability to grow ESCs for a longer duration, regulating this research will be far more difficult.  It will be very difficult to uphold a cut-off point regulation, as these are international regulations, not just federal (Zimmer).  This could potentially lead to unregulated experiments on embryonic stem cells even as they continue to grow into a fetus.  

The requirement of oocyte donation for embryonic stem cell research only expands on the necessity to abolish this stem cell research method.  An oocyte is the medical term for a woman’s egg that has not yet been fertilized.  Once fertilized, the oocyte is considered to be an embryo.  There are several medical risks associated with oocyte retrieval such as, ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, bleeding, and infection (Lo and Parham).  Since universal health care does not exist in the U.S., compensation for research related injuries has not yet been adopted nationwide (Lo and Parham). Therefore, this endangers the donors’ health without responsibility, meaning if the procedure goes poorly, the doctor and hospital are not required to compensate the donor for these injuries (Murry and Keller).  The donation of oocyte’s to research also directly impacts life elsewhere.  The same oocytes could have been used in infertility treatment to grant life, instead of being destroyed through research. On top of that, oocyte retrieval also condones the selling of human biological material, which in turn devalues human life and its sacredness.   

Adult and induced pluripotent stem cells offer ethical alternatives in stem cell research and have shown promising results.  Adult stem cells can be removed from certain areas in the body such as blood, tissue, or bone marrow.  These cells are multipotent cells, meaning they can differentiate into specialized cells from their original tissue and trans differentiate into specialized cells of another tissue (Lo and Parham).  Since these cells are extracted from the human body, instead of through the destruction of an embryo, religious communities support adult stem cell research.  Also, in organ transplantation rejection is common; however, this method would produce genetically identical organs for transplant thus mitigating the possibility of organ rejection.  Adult stem cells have already shown promising results in treating autoimmune and cardiovascular disease (Lo and Parham).  Experiments have even shown success in using adult stem cells to treat cancer.

Induced pluripotent stem cells provide the best alternative to ESC research.  IPSCs are somatic, non-reproductive, cells, reprogrammed to be pluripotent.  Stein states “iPS cells could enable scientists to take an easily obtainable skin cell from any patient and use it to create perfectly matched cells, tissue and potentially even entire organs for transplants that would be immune to rejection” (Stein).  Because these cells are derived from somatic cells, they do not destroy an embryo upon extraction, making iPSC research a more ethical option than research in embryonic stem cells.  Also, since these cell lines are derived from the somatic cell of the donor, they will have the donor’s DNA already present (Lo and Parham).  This has the potential of minimizing the rejection of new tissues and organs transplanted back into the original cell donor.  This could also potentially minimize or eliminate the need for continuous post-transplant medication.  Induced pluripotent stem cells are very easily obtainable, making them an even better option for experiments.  The ease and availability of iPSCs provide a useful bank of cells readily available to provide patient-specific therapies.

Many people argue that ESC research has more possibilities and has shown more promising results than any other type of stem cell.  While this used to be true, recent studies have revealed that iPSC research has similar, if not the same possibilities (Stein).  Modern stem-cell engineering techniques have focused on finding alternatives to embryonic stem cell research.  According to Stein, “a team of researchers at the Harvard Stem Cell Institute in Boston published a series of experiments showing that synthetic biological signals can quickly reprogram ordinary skin cells into entities that appear virtually identical to embryonic stem cells” (Stein).  This same strategy can also be used for the transplantation of these cells, providing more medical and regenerative capabilities.  On top of that, induced pluripotent stem cells have shown the potential to treat and possibly even cure many diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, cardiovascular disease, and ALS (Goldthwaite).  While various sources have stated, “adult stem cells have already been shown to cure or minimize leukemia, type 1 diabetes, lupus, sickle cell anemia, multiple sclerosis and more” (Gilbert).  However, embryonic stem cells have not had any success in curing diseases but show promise because of their pluripotent qualities.  Therefore, the possibilities of adult and iPSC research together exceed the possibilities of ESC research, without destroying life.  

At what point have scientists gone too far?  Stem cell research began as a search for the potential treatments and cures to major diseases.  Adult stem cells have already been found to treat several of these diseases and induced pluripotent stem cells have shown promising results, without ethical concerns.  However, embryonic stem cells are still the most widely used type of stem cell for research.  The use of human embryos in research, even for the good of society, comes with the cost of destroying a potential life.  Not only does ESC research destroy embryos, it requires the donation of oocytes, which will also be destroyed.  Oocyte donation endangers the donor’s health and allows them to sell their own biological material, devaluing human life.  Scientists continue to destroy these embryos and oocytes for research despite more ethical alternatives being present.  Therefore, federal funding for embryonic stem cell research should be ceased and relocated to adult and induced pluripotent stem cell research, because life is a gift and it is everyone’s responsibility to protect that gift.  
