Human embryonic stem cell research: an ethical controversy that has persisted over time and into the values and beliefs of people around the world today. Human embryonic stem cell (HESC) research holds promise for treating and curing those who are affected by devastating diseases and injuries. These incredible cells are defined by their self-renewal capabilities and how they are able to differentiate, modifying themselves into any type of cell in the body. The research involving HESCs focuses on transforming said cells into specialized cells that can be utilized in the treatment for destructive illnesses and disorders of the human body (Siegel). They have the ability to create identical stem cells or differentiate into specific cell types of tissues and organs throughout the body. There are two different types of stem cells: embryonic stem cells, which originate from pre-implanted embryos, and ‘adult’ or somatic stem cells. Somatic stem cells are present in tissues of the fetus, and specifically serve to repair and replace damaged tissues after birth (Wert and Mummery). The National Institutes of Health defines embryonic stem cells as cells, “derived from embryos that develop from eggs that have been fertilized in vitro—in an in vitro fertilization clinic—and then donated for research purposes with informed consent of the donors. They are not derived from eggs fertilized in a woman's body” (“Stem Cell Information”). The eggs left over from these procedures are willingly donated to research with consent from both parties, which is where scientists obtain embryonic stem cells. Note that these cells are not a result of a naturally fertilized egg that is created through natural conception processes (“Stem Cell Information”).

The possible applications for human embryonic stem cell research is seemingly endless. By understanding what happens during abnormal cell division and differentiation, scientists can identify how diseases and illness arise in the body, ultimately devising treatments for them. The research largely aims to break down and analyze the process which entails the transformation of undifferentiated stem cells into differentiated cells, which create tissues and organs in the human body. At some point during the differentiation process, some cells divide abnormally causing serious birth defects and cancers. When stem cells are evolving into specific types of cells, such as liver or colon cells, they are at risk of dividing abnormally; this is what gives rise to cancer within the body. In research labs today, HESCs are utilized in the discovery process for new medications to test possible safety concerns with a drug. Above all, the possibility of using human embryonic stem cells for cell-based therapies reigns as the most valuable benefit. As organs and tissues deteriorate, scientists may one day be able to replace certain cells of said organs or tissues, treating diseases and illnesses. Presently, donations are the only source for replacing those organs and tissues in desperate need of treatment. As a result, there is a severe shortage of transplantable organs and viable tissues. HESCs offer a renewable alternative to treat disease, as opposed to the limited donation supply (“Stem Cell Information”). Understanding the controversy in using HESCs explains how and why this research is too important to let moral values hinder the process. While both sides of the argument are at play with deeply held beliefs, the only possible outcome as of right now from this research is the promise of improved of healthcare around the world.

The ethical controversy of using human embryos in research entails two sides, “Proponents argue that embryonic stem cell research holds great promise for understanding and curing diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, spinal cord injury, and other debilitating conditions. Opponents argue that the research is unethical, because deriving the stem cells destroys the blastocyst, an unimplanted human embryo at the sixth to eighth day of development” (“Examining the ethics of embryonic stem cell research”). If regulations are implemented, human embryonic stem cell research can be deemed ethical, as utilizing a mass of cells that are not yet considered a fetus and are destined to be discarded, offers promise for the benefit of curing degenerative diseases and cancers.

As already mentioned, the controversy over HESC research has persisted since its inception in the 1980s and into today’s medical field. In 1981, scientists Martin Evans of the University of Cambridge and Gail Martin of the University of California, San Francisco, discovered stem cells in the embryos of mice that were capable of giving rise to several different cell types. At the time, these were the first stem cells to be isolated from the embryo itself. Another major discovery came in 1997, when Dominique Bonnet and John Dick of Canada found leukemia to originate from the same stem cells which create our blood cells. This was significant, as it was one of the first pieces of evidence to help scientists understand the concept of “cancer stem cells”. Essentially, they found cancer to grow out of these stem cells in the body. By analyzing the processes by which these stem cells became cancerous, scientists are able to gather valuable information that can ultimately be used in the development of a cure. A pivotal point in the advancement of this research was in 1998, when the first embryonic stem cells were derived from human embryos by James Thomson and Jeffrey Jones at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. Despite these significant advancements, HESC research faced a major challenge just three years later, when then President Bush limited federal funding for the cause (“History of Stem Cell Research – A Timeline”). An article published by TIME in 2012 talks specifically about the restrictions. In 2001, former President George W. Bush restricted federal funding for research on human embryonic stem cells because he considered their isolation to be the destruction of human life. Bush stated, “At its core, this issue forces us to confront fundamental questions about the beginnings of life and the ends of science… My position on these issues is shaped by deeply held beliefs… I also believe human life is a sacred gift from our creator” (Park). It is important to understand that many hold this same belief, and for those who consider the fertilization of an egg the beginning of human life, HESC research is unethical and does not consider the values that some hold. However, if human life is so sacred, why does Bush want to deprive those who are losing their lives everyday of promising treatment? This ban limited the funding for research on already existing stem cell lines, which have the potential of curing diseases such as diabetes, heart disease and Parkinson’s. Bush believed in the non-scientific position of the argument, expressing moral concerns that HESC research devalued human life because embryos are destroyed in the process (Park). Rather, by creating restrictions and using embryos that are destined to thaw and die, the moral concerns of the research can be alleviated. Then, in 2009, President Barack Obama lifted the restrictions Bush had set in place eight years earlier. An article published in The New York Times, just after this executive order was issued, explained Obama’s point of view. He acknowledged that studying stem cells from human embryos is highly controversial. Former President Obama stated,

“Many thoughtful and decent people are conflicted about, or strongly oppose, this research… I understand their concerns, and we must respect their point of view.” But Mr. Obama went on to say that the majority of Americans “have come to a consensus that we should pursue this research; that the potential it offers is great, and with proper guidelines and strict oversight the perils can be avoided” (Stolberg).

Here, President Obama agrees that this research is opposed by many, and respecting everyone’s beliefs is obviously important. But, a portion of the population, Obama included, believes that the advancement of this research is necessary for many reasons already discussed and forthcoming. With restrictions, scientists can respect those who equate human life with fertilization, by implementing Obama’s desired ‘proper guidelines and strict oversight’ to ease the ethical debate (Stolberg). 

In July of 2009, eager to implement the President’s executive order, the NIH revised the provisions on federal funding, which lifted the Bush-era restrictions and restored government support for the research. However, the need for informed donor consent to authorize the use of the embryos was heavily emphasized (“History of Stem Cell Research – A Timeline”). This provision was set in place to respect the moral value of the embryos. Since the 1980s, HESC research has clearly become a large topic of discussion. While the history of HESC research is important in understanding where the world stands with the controversy, the ethical concerns still remain, despite its medical upside. Many still believe that at fertilization, human embryos are the equivalent to a human being. In the end, if they are going to be thawed out and discarded, scientists can utilize this so-called human life by looking into treatments and cures for people around the globe. To understand why, one must realize how guidelines within this research can ease concerns and undermine the argument that HESC research is unethical.  

The moral concerns of HESC research can indeed be alleviated to respect those who oppose it. In the words of Janet Rowley, human embryonic stem cell research does too much good to be evil. Rowley was a professor of medicine at the University of Chicago and a member of the President's Council on Bioethics. Members on the Council were responsible for advising President George W. Bush on bioethical issues in the advancement of medical research. In her article, Rowley states, “The decision to end many restrictions on embryonic stem cell research has removed a key barrier to research and discovery… A responsible expansion of embryonic stem cell research can advance a vital goal—the search for new medical treatments—while respecting the dignity of human life” (Rowley). When Bush placed restrictions on HESC research, the potential benefits of treatments and cures that scientists were seeking diminished. By enacting laws with regulations, Rowley, and many others, believe that the research can still respect the value of human life, while also searching for these treatments and cures of the already living. She then states, “At present, there are about 400,000 human embryos in the freezers of in vitro fertilization clinics. Many are destined to be thawed and discarded and thus die. It is a true moral dilemma, but science offers a way to bring something good from a flawed situation” (Rowley). HESCs clearly have the potential to create many cures and treatments. If they are to be discarded, alternatively using them for research can reveal such treatments and cures that are extremely important to a large portion of the population today. Scientists have not yet found other ways to analyze how diseases and cancers arise in the body. Thus, letting embryos thaw and die off is essentially the same outcome that would occur if they were to be used in research for the betterment of many lives. By using these embryos, which were donated by consenting women rather than being created solely for experimentation, scientists can conduct promising research without ethical concerns (Rowley). 

Scientists such as Janet Rowley believe that the ethical side of HESC research outweighs the unethical side. With governmental intervention, the beneficial research can be conducted, while making it clear that the moral value of the embryo must be preserved. To understand why many people feel that this research is immoral, we must look to Issues in Perspective. Dr. Jim Eckman, a medical professional who holds a position on the advisory board of The Nebraska Coalition for Ethical Research (NCER), argues that human embryonic stem cell research is unethical. The NCER opposes derivation and use of stem cells from human embryos, but supports their use when obtained from umbilical cord blood or other sources that do not involve destruction of human life. Eckman believes that human embryonic stem cell research is immoral and must be banned because it violates the life, dignity, and rights of human beings. He brings up four main points in his argument: every human has a right to life, every human has a right to be protected from discrimination, every human being is an end to be loved, not a means to be used for another’s end, and lastly every human is of equal value to every other human being (Eckman). He concludes his article with stating, “Failure to protect embryonic and fetal human life, the most vulnerable of human beings, erodes the moral fiber of our society” (Eckman). One may wonder how embryonic and fetal human life can be the most vulnerable of human beings, if they do not have nearly the same capacity of a living, breathing human. Contrary to this belief, many still do value embryonic life as the equivalent to a human being. Regardless of the fact that this value is deeply held and not subject to change for some, the benefits of this research still outweigh moral concerns. While the right to human life exists for everyone, by finding common ground within this research, the moral value can be preserved.

While guidelines such as only using embryos that are destined to be thawed out and die have already been discussed as a potential compromise to the controversy, there are two other very important restrictions that would also alleviate ethical concerns of this research. One intermediate position, as Rowley argued, has emerged as the leading solution to the controversy in many western countries, the United States among them. Under the Obama administration, ‘discarded–created distinction’ is defined as, “Discarded–created distinction: It is ethically permissible to derive and use hESCs from discarded IVF embryos. It is ethically impermissible to create embryos solely for the purpose of stem cell derivation, and to derive or use hESCs from such embryos” (Quigley et al. 139). This definition restates Rowley’s words using medical terminology. These guidelines restrict how and when embryonic stem cells are used in research. It gives credence to the idea that HESC research is valuable in the search for cures and other medical advancements, while also acknowledging the need to respect moral concerns associated with embryos. Essentially, according to ‘discarded-created distinction’, the only embryos that can be used in HESC research are those that are going to be discarded, or those acquired through donation. For people who believe that the research is morally unethical, these restrictions can help ease their concerns as to which embryos may only be used for research. With careful consideration, guidelines can help regulate and advance this research ethically.

In Anne McLaren’s, “Ethical and social considerations of stem cell research”, the moral value of donated embryos is again considered with another guideline. Couples who choose to undergo IVF treatments are often faced with the decision of what to do with leftover embryos. They can either let the embryos die, donate them to another couple, or donate them to research, which can result in groundbreaking medical advancements. A justification for the donation option is the fact that many people see the moral value of an embryo as a gradual progression. At the one-cell stage, embryonic stem cells are no different from any other stem cell in the body, as they are rather undifferentiated at this point in time. Essentially, these cells have not specialized into heart-beating or brain-functioning cells, therefore the embryo does not hold the same value as a newborn with developed skin, lung, and brain cells (all necessary in sustaining human life). Embryo to birth is a long and complex process, and at this very early stage, donation is a viable option for leftover embryos. As already discussed, even though the embryos contain non-life sustaining stem cells, some still firmly believe that at fertilization, the embryo is equivalent to a human being. As another guideline to ease this belief and continue the research with a more ethically sound reason, scientists can limit the duration for which the research can be conducted. Countries that allow HESC research can limit how long the embryos are acceptable for research by 14 days, which is around when the fetus begins to form. After this 14-day period, individual human development begins, essentially when the cells start to specialize (McLaren). By clearly establishing the circumstances for when embryos can and cannot be used for research, and limiting the duration that the embryo can be utilized, this research can be deemed ethical.

In Andrew Siegel’s Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, he states, “…there is nothing objectionable about transplant surgeons and patients benefiting from the organs of murder and drunken driving victims” (Siegel). So, why are there objections when human embryos are used to conduct life-saving research that could potentially cure millions of people around the world? To answer this, one might look into the major benefits, on a larger scale, of human embryonic stem cell research. According to NYSTEM, “The National Institutes of Health indicates that approximately 1.1 million Americans suffer a heart attack each year, and together cardiovascular diseases and cancers are the top two causes of death according to the CDC, with each killing over half a million Americans each year” (“What are the potential benefits of stem cell research?”). HESC research provides an outlet for potentially discovering new and improved methods to repair cardiovascular damage and for maximizing the effectiveness of cancer treatments. However, these ailments are not the sole beneficiaries of embryonic stem cells, as the upside to HESC research has the ability to be far more wide-ranging. The research can also provide benefits to those affected by stroke, respiratory disease, diabetes, neurological disorders, spinal cord injuries, and in some cases, birth defects. This ranges from testing new drugs to cell-based therapies in which stem cells can assist in regenerating dying tissues and cells. By using donated or unused embryos which are set to be discarded, the ethical controversy of this research can be resolved. Quite simply, only the continuation of the research itself will produce evidence of its promise and potential (“What are the potential benefits of stem cell research?”).

Susan Solomon, a health care advocate, supports human stem cell research aiming to cure major diseases and empower more personalized medicine. Her son’s Type 1 diabetes and mother’s fatal cancer are what inspired her to accelerate medical research with real-world results as a social entrepreneur. Solomon begins her speech with how incredible stem cells are. She states, “They are our body's own repair kits, and they're pluripotent, which means they can morph into all of the cells in our bodies. Soon, we actually will be able to use stem cells to replace cells that are damaged or diseased” (Solomon). She also talks about how scientists can now create avatars with human stem cells. Essentially, scientists will soon be able to create cells that are models of cells within the human body. This means that scientists can test drugs and promising compounds on the actual cells that are the source of disease and cancer. She says that with the advancements of this research, we are not going to have to wait thirteen years until scientists have brought a drug to the market, only to find that the drug does not even work, or worse, harms the human body. Solomon’s concluding thoughts touch on why stem cell research is important to her and why it should be important to everyone. She states,

“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. Thank you” (Solomon).

Susan Solomon has loved ones with incurable diseases and cancers, providing a sentimental aspect to the need for HESC research. Many people around the world share her experiences, which solidifies the relevance of this anecdote. She goes on to say that throughout life, many people will need to overcome some type of medical obstacle, whether it be them, or someone they love. Her personal experiences and story shed light on the argument as to why HESC research is so important for human life, present and future.
