The first human embryonic stem cells were derived from early-stage embryos on November 6th, 1998, leading to the discovery of their pluripotent capabilities that will further research on new drugs, cell transplants, and disease therapies for future generations. Pluripotent stem cells have the capability to become any type of cell in the human body with further advancements and studies. Along with the arrival of this new discovery also grew disagreements over human embryonic stem cell research (denoted hESC research) and laws regulating how embryo research is to be conducted with respect to the embryo and laws that have previously been created. 

 Disagreements and controversy over embryo research mainly arose from the belief that human embryonic stem cell research was unethical by parents, some lawmakers, right-to-life committees, and various religious denominations. This is viewed as unethical because human embryonic stem cell research destroys an embryo in order to aid in medical discoveries by extracting the undeveloped, pluripotent stem cells. In addition, these groups believe the research is illegal because the research is taking a human life, or murdering, the early embryo. Also in regards to legality, these groups believe embryo research also disobeys other laws such as the Dickey-Wicker Amendment of 1995. Also, these groups do not believe that human embryonic stem cell research is necessary due to the fact that researchers have found a way to manipulate adult cells into functioning in the same way that the human embryonic stem cells are capable of. In contrast to these valid beliefs on human embryonic stem cell research, there are indeed groups that possess the belief in the permissibility of human embryonic stem cell research aiding in medical research. Parents of sick children, some lawmakers, and biomedical research companies view the research as beneficial to the society as a whole because of the promising capabilities of the stem cells. The promises of stem cell research include- but are not limited to- new drug discoveries, cell therapy, donor organs, cancer treatments, and curing other currently incurable diseases. Due to this, these groups believe that the promises outweigh the other factors in the controversy over stem cell research. They also find it ethical because if the embryos are not donated to research, they will be discarded by the in-vitro clinics that they were created in. Therefore, these groups believe that the embryos are being put to better use in research than solely being thrown away. 

The opposing beliefs and controversy surrounding the legality, beneficiality, permissiblity, and ethicality on the topic of human embryonic human stem cell research has the capacity to be debated over for many years to come by all groups involved. In order to succeed in creating a beneficial agreement among all the members of the controversy over human embryonic stem cell research, it is in my opinion that society focuses on the aspects of the argument that are clear-cut, have the potentiality to be changed, and are obtainable. In particular, it will be beneficial to focus on the current and past laws and regulations that have been controlling human embryonic stem cell research, and how these laws -and changes to these laws- can aid in developing a more strictly regulated industry of human embryonic stem cell research in the United States. The definition of a human embryo can be debated over endlessly, therefore, focusing on laws and regulations that have the potentiality to be revised, changed, and created, will give all groups involved with the debate the ability to be a part of the change in creating a safer and more beneficial industry of human embryonic stem cell research.

With the introduction of human embryonic stem cell research to the public also led to the introduction of groups that disagreed with the legality, ethicality, and overall permissibility of  human embryonic stem cell. To begin, one group that opposes human embryonic stem cell research are law-makers in the United States. One reason that this group opposes the legality of human embryonic stem cell research is because of the belief that the act destroys a human life. It was said by United States congressman Patrick McHenry that “Medical breakthroughs should improve life, not take life” (Latham). McHenry said this in 2006 when he voted against the proposed legislation for federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research. In addition, McHenry also questioned the morality of human embryonic stem cell research after his vote against the proposed legislation: “Embryonic stem cell research is morally wrong because it’s based on the concept that you create life to destroy it” (Latham). It is clear that congressman McHenry opposes human embryonic stem cell research due to the problematic outcome of ending a life in order to carryout research for the living. He obviously has respect for all lives in the United States while standing by his decision to protect all lives in his decision to vote against the legislation. It is understandable that law-makers would have clearly formulated opinions against the morality and legality of human embryonic stem cell research since they are familiar with laws and handling cases that are controversial. In addition, Mike Pence-the current Vive President of the United States- voiced his opinion on hESC research. He shared in his belief that “There is no right more fundamental than the right to life,” aiding in the defense against human embryonic stem cell research. With this statement begins the outlook of his religious and political view on the permissibility of human embryonic stem cell research in the United States. He openly tells his audience that he is a Christian who “believes that life begins at conception and that a human embryo is human life” (Pence). He also incorporates the idea that hESC research ignores the capabilities of using adult stem cell research in place of embryos. As a counter argument, Pence states that President Obama’s attempt to provide federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research “so unconscionable and offensive… thanks to science itself, there are better alternatives that uphold the sanctity of life” (Pence). This is based off the fact that adult stem cell lines have the potentiality to differentiate into other cell types. In order to uncover further information on their potentialities, scientific research would need to be furthered as well. Therefore, Pence believes that stem cell research focus on using adult stem cells in place of embryo stem cells due to his Christian background and belief that every life is valuable. 

In addition to this, there is controversy over whether or not human embryonic stem cell research violates the Dickey-Wicker amendment. The Dickey-Wicker amendment prohibits the “federal government from funding research that destroys human embryos” (Harvard Law). Some members of congress believe that any new legislation providing for funding for human embryonic stem cell research will be in violation of the Dickey-Wicker amendment. This is an understandable case due to the fact that the Dickey-Wicker does, in fact, state that federal funding will not be given to any research that involves destroying a human embryo. This amendment does not, however, oppose the legality of using private funds in order to conduct human embryonic stem cell research. 

Also opposing human embryonic stem cell research are right-to-life committees composed of parents, pro-life enthusiasts, and various religious denominations also disagree with research on human embryos. It is important to note that all of these groups have a common reason for opposing human embryonic stem cell research: losing the life of an embryo. It is in the opinion of Christians that embryos should not be researched on because they, too, emphasize “the distinctive dignity or the dignity common to all persons” (Muhling & Gilland) who are being harmed during human embryonic stem cell research. This statement reflects the idea that all persons, including embryos, should be treated with equal amounts of dignity. This leads to the point that while destroying an embryo for research, scientists are not treating these persons with dignity that they deserve. 

It is clear that there are multiple reasons behind why a person would not agree with conducting human embryonic stem cell research, despite its potentiality. To these groups, the benefits do not outweigh their reasons for opposing human embryonic stem cell research. It is understandable that with moral duties and attention to detail when it comes to laws that these groups deny the permissibility of the research. The potentiality of embryonic stem cells ranges from cell therapies to new drug treatments for diseases. These diseases can range form disorders such as multiple sclerosis to different types of cancers. Cancer takes the lives of about 564,800 Americans each year (American Cancer Society). It is said that human embryonic stem cell research will eventually lead to finding a cure for diseases like this that take the lives of people everyday. The groups supporting human embryonic stem cell research because of its medical promises include parents of ill children, lawmakers, and biomedical research companies. They all have their own opinions and reasons for believing in the permissibility of human embryonic stem cell research. 

Lawmakers in congress have differing opinions on whether or not human embryonic stem cell research is morally and legally permissible in the United States. As previously stated, lawmakers that oppose human embryonic stem cell research base their opinions on their moral standings and whether or not various aspects of the research is legal. With this in mind, one can contrast and compare why there is debate surrounding human embryonic stem cell research within our democracy. Moving forward, lawmakers also have voiced their opinion to support human embryonic stem cell research in the U.S. Recently, President Barack Obama displayed his support for human embryonic stem cell research and its benefits in 2009 when he signed an executive order to provide researchers with federal funding. During the ceremony Obama said, “We will vigorously support scientists who pursue this research” (Hayden). This statement shows how important human embryonic stem cell research is, and that federal funding is also important in order to pursue the research. Furthermore, this displays how federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research is a controversial issue in the United States. It is clear that federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research can aid in the event to “speed up research on stem cells and the development of possible treatments around the world” (Hayden). Without human embryonic stem cell research being conducted and funded for, it will take scientists longer to reach the proposed medical aspirations.

Another group of people that have stated their support for human embryonic stem cell research are parents who have ill children with life-threatening diseases. They view the consequences of human embryonic stem cell research as less-than-important compared to the benefits that it proposes. These parents have to watch their children suffer from diseases that could possibly be cured with the help of human embryonic stem cell research. Despite the fact that hESC research has to sacrifice a human embryo for this research, these parents are willing to support it. There are cases of human embryonic stem cell research that has helped save the lives of sick children. For example, from a medical case in September 2014, it was noted that “Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) remains the only curative treatment for many inherited and acquired pediatric hematological disorders” (Kahraman). This statement was given in order to reiterate the fact that the blood stem cells from embryos that were grown into siblings of sick children were then used in order to cure them. This is an example of a time where human embryonic stem cell research did not harm or destroy the embryo. Therefore, human embryonic stem cell research does not always do harm to an embryo, and instead creates a life that will be given a greater purpose. To continue, this medical case successfully cure forty-four sick children who suffered from blood disorders with their siblings blood stem cells (Kahraman). Without human embryonic stem cell research doctors and scientists would not have this type of medical information in order to treat patients like the previously states ones. The parents of these children now do not have to worry about their childrens’ blood disorders due to this stem cell therapy. The researchers make it important to state that “the follow up of families with affected children and siblings conceived after PGD is crucial” (Kahraman).The follow-up is important in order to be sure that these families are adjusting to their new lives and to be sure that their children are fully cured and have no complications. This treatment gives couples a realistic option in order to fulfill the “treatment of an affected sibling” (Kahraman).

Since human embryonic stem cell research has become a growing industry in the late 1990’s, biomedical research companies have supported the research. It has been difficult for these companies to conduct research due to regulations on the funding provided for human embryonic stem cell research in the United States. In August 2001, President George W. Bush enacted a policy that supporters considered “not a restriction on hESC research, but rather the first initiative permitting such research to go forward under federal auspices” (Green). This statement sums up the idea that when President Bush restricted federal funding on embryonic stem cell lines and created heavier barriers for conducting human embryonic stem cell research, he was attempting to regulate the industry. For biomedical companies, this poses a problem because without federal funding it is difficult to conduct the research in depth solely on private funding.

In order to conclude this argument, it is important to understand that there are many opposing arguments surrounding the permissibility of human embryonic stem cell research. All the groups involved in the debate of human embryonic stem cell research have valid reasoning for supporting or opposing the research. For society to find a common ground on the issue, it is important that all groups attempt to understand why each individual feels a specific way on the issue at hand. Being able to view the issue from different opinions makes the problem clearer. It is in my opinion that if every group could put aside their differences, human embryonic stem cell research could become a beneficial, safe, regulated, and common industry in the United States. 

To clarify, human embryonic stem cell research will have a successful future in the United States under a few conditions. In my opinion, human embryonic stem cell research needs to be highly regulated by the federal government. I do not believe that the research should be allowed to be conducted privately by research scientists. This could cause the embryos to be treated without dignity and respect, and illegal research could be conducted without supervision of the federal government. Another reason that I believe the federal government should take action in the growth of the human embryonic stem cell research industry is because where the embryos come from needs to be regulated. I find it important that embryos are not paid for in any form. The embryos should only be donated by in-vitro clinics with clear permission from both mother and father. Clearly, to enforce and create strict regulations on human embryonic stem cell research, the federal government would have to play a large role in the industry. 

It is also important that the embryos that are used for stem cell research are tracked and all their information is stored in some sort of database. For the intent of information stored, I find it important that every procedure, and purpose of the embryos be stored. It is important that the embryos are not forgotten once they are done benefitting the stem cell research that were used for. 

In my opinion, I believe that the previously stated solutions are necessary in creating a safe and effective industry of human embryonic stem cell research that will ease most groups worries and feelings on the issue. It is impossible for one solution to appease all groups, but it is possible for a solution to attempt at appeasing all the groups. It takes time to create a system in which human embryonic stem cell research will eventually be a well-adapted and running industry in the United States. With the aid of the federal government, human embryonic stem cell research will be well on its way to creating a great industry of research that will be beneficial to all Americans in the United States.
