Professional Documents
Culture Documents
cells on a petri dish. Who ought to be saved? Such is the conundrum of embryonic stem cell
research: these remarkable cells can save countless lives, yet their acquisition necessitates the
stem cell research effectively condemns millions to misery and demise for the sake of these cells.
America cannot continue to deny its citizens the potential miracles of embryonic stem cells.
Therefore, federal funding restrictions for embryonic stem cell research on new cell lines should
The opposition’s thesis is that research violates an embryo’s right to life. But the mere
potential for life does not automatically equate to actual life, especially the life of a suffering
patient. As Renee Saenger, writer for the Columbia Spectator, argues, “the majority of
Americans will favor a cure for heart disease for a man whom they can identify with over a
clump of cells that […] lack the experiences that define that which they know as life.”1
Moreover, ascribing the 400,000 discarded embryos of in vitro fertilization2 the same status as
walking, breathing persons is a fallacy: these amalgams at best remain indefinitely in suspended
animation, their chances of growing into an infant infinitesimal. At worst, an embryo joins the
8,000 to 10,000 that are destroyed annually.3 Prohibiting embryonic research, then throwing
embryos down the drain is grotesquely reprehensible. As a pluralistic democracy, America must
provide for its citizens’ well-being, not enforce dogma. Ronald Green, member of the NIH
1
Erin P. George, “The Stem Cell Debate: The Legal, Political, and Ethical Issues Surrounding Federal
Funding of Scientific Research on Human Embryos,” Albany Law Journal of Science and Technology 2002: 796,
LexisNexis Academic, LexisNexis, University of Iowa Libraries, Iowa City, 17 Dec. 2007 <http://lexis.com>.
2
Marcia Clemmitt, “Stem Cell Research,” CQ Researcher 1 Sept. 2006: 699, 18 Dec. 2007
<http://library.cqpress.com>.
3
Clemmitt 713.
Tang 2
[A] pluralistic democracy committed to protecting and improving the health of its
citizens cannot justly exclude one area from its research support merely because
that area is objected to by some of its citizens on the basis of their personal
religious and moral beliefs. Unless these […] objections can be grounded in
Hence, objections to embryonic stem cell research are fundamentally grounded in personal
beliefs—opinions that cannot justly belong in public policy. Therefore, our obligation to
ameliorate the pains of suffering people outweigh any tenacious ties to mere clumps of cells—
cells that almost certainly will never see the light of day.
Adult stem cell research will not eliminate the necessity of embryonic stem cell research
because the two play complementary roles. Claims that adult stem cell research holds greater
promise are false because the two cannot be competitively compared. Adult cells have
undergone twenty fervent years of research while embryonic cells were only discovered in 1998
and research has been crippled by misguided ethics and laws throughout.5 Thus, our knowledge
is simply inadequate to responsibly conclude that adult cells are pragmatically superior. The
American Society of Cell Biology and all other major scientific societies concur that both must
be researched.6 Further, unique properties of embryonic stem cells make substitution impossible.
Adult stem cells are available only for a limited repertoire of tissue; embryonic stem cells are
still required for a genuine answer to the onslaught of disease.7 Embryonic cells allow
4
qtd. in George 794.
5
Clemmitt 704.
6
George Daley, “Embryonic Stem Cell Research,” CQ Congressional Testimony 29 Sept. 2004: n.pag.
LexisNexis Academic, LexisNexis, University of Iowa Libraries, Iowa City, 17 Dec. 2007 <http://lexis.com>.
7
Daley n.pag.
2
Tang 3
researchers to study disease development as cells mature into tissue, providing novel insight for
prevention and cure.8 Finally, studying embryonic cells may unlock the enigma of pluripotency,
that is, the means by which an embryonic stem cell can develop into the plethora of bodily cells.
Consequently, by studying embryonic cells, it may be possible to revert adult stem cells back
into embryo-like cells, eliminating the future need to destroy embryos.9 The restrictions on
embryonic stem cell research that tie researchers’ hands behind their backs are chains that must
be broken.
For the millions suffering from Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, spinal cord injury, AIDS, heart
disease, and a plethora of other diseases, the stem cell is a bastion of hope.10 By developing into
any cell as needed, pluripotent embryonic stem cells rejuvenate dead, damaged, or diseased
tissue, combating and reversing the ravages of practically any degenerative disease.11 By
developing into organs, stem cells offer hope for the 70,000 who await a transplant each year in
the U.S., according to Dr. Niklason, associate professor of biomedical engineering at Yale
University.12 These cells may fool the body into thinking transplanted tissue is native, thereby
solving the problem of organ rejection.13 Altogether, over 128 million in the U.S. may directly
benefit from embryonic stem cell research.14 The history of fetal tissue research, including such
miracles as vaccines for Polio and measles, demonstrates all the reason to believe cures will be
8
Clemmitt 704.
9
Clemmitt 704.
10
Goldstein 235.
11
Goldstein 232-3.
12
qtd. in Goldstein 257.
13
Goldstein 235.
14
George 792.
3
Tang 4
found with embryonic stem cells.15 Yet despite alluring promise, current efforts are still
elementary: scientists are still determining which stimuli lead to which cells.16 Many stretches of
uncharted terrain remain before clinical treatments can be devised. Therefore, it is imperative
that the government fund embryonic stem cell research in order to secure the well-being of
Only federal funding can support the research to find cures. The hundreds of cell types
derived from stem cells would require thousands of projects and a sum “far exceeding the
separately funded studies often cannot share equipment or specimens.18 Federal funding can
eliminate such waste. Worse is the moral vacuum of private research in which federal oversight
is nil and ethical guidelines few.19 The lack of appropriate federal funding compounded by a for-
profit paradigm creates the incentive for a fetal tissue black market that guidelines under federal
collaboration; their objective is not cure but capital. Already, Preventative Medical Center in
Rotterdam has offered deceitful stem cell treatments.21 In a race to maximize profit, suffering
patients lose. However, the rigorous National Institutes of Health Guidelines provide numerous
15
Goldstein 257.
16
Goldstein 232.
17
Michael D. West, “Embryonic Stem Cell Research is Ethical,” Testimony before U.S. Senate
Appropriations Committee, Washington, D.C. 18 Jul. 2001, rpt. in The Ethics of Genetic Engineering, ed. Maurya
Siedler, At Issue (Detroit: Greenhaven-Gale, 2005) 104.
18
Clemmitt 706.
19
Campbell 70.
20
Jason H. Casell, “Lengthening the Stem: Allowing Federally Funded Researchers to Derive Human
Pluripotent Stem Cells from Embryos,” University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform Spring 2001: 556,
LexisNexis Academic, LexisNexis, University of Iowa Libraries, Iowa City, 17 Dec. 2007 <http://lexis.com>.
21
Clemmitt 700.
4
Tang 5
ethical checks; for instance, only discarded IVF embryos or aborted fetuses may be used, and
donations must provided free of compensation.22 But the unregulated private sector into which
embryonic stem cell research is being forced makes such checks moot. Society needs oversight
through federal funding in order to make a moral process out of bourgeois madness.
America’s medical and economical prowess is doomed without embryonic stem cell
research. The European Union has funded stem cell research since 2006.23 Asia is aggressively
seizing the opportunity to overtake the West. Lu Guangxiu, a Chinese researcher, declares,
24
“We’re not that far behind the West anymore”; many American researchers would agree.
Japan’s new Centre for Developmental Biology has attracted the two Americans researchers who
first cloned a human embryo.25 With liberal policies and impressive facilities, many more
American scientists may be lured overseas. As Michael Manganiello, vice president of the
Christopher Reeve Foundation articulates, “Scientists are interesting folks. These guys just want
to work, and I don’t think they really care where […]. If they can do it in Singapore […],
England […], Israel, South Korea, or Sweden, they’ll go and do it there.”26 Thus, the benefits of
the research of American scientists will still be realized—but not here. Exacerbating this
concern is the chilling effect on younger scientists: the lack of funding tells them to pursue
another field,27 while continued controversy portrays embryonic stem cell research as something
far too dangerous in which to stake their careers.28 President Bush’s de-facto ban is forcing
22
George 779.
23
Clemmitt 699-700.
24
qtd. in Scott Anderson, “The Big Chill: Politics vs. the Science of Stem Cell Research,” Capitalism
Magazine Aug. 2002, rpt. in New Science, ed. Rachel Bean et al., Pro/Con (Danbury: Grolier, 2004) 120-1.
25
Campbell 69.
26
McCarthy 868.
27
Clemmitt 706.
28
Anderson 120.
5
Tang 6
scientists overseas and suppressing an aspiring generation; other nations will see miracles while
America falters. Embryos will be used for research regardless of whether the American
government funds embryonic stem cell research. Patients should not be forced to fly to Europe
expatriate American when the same treatment could be had here. Federal funding for embryonic
stem cell research is therefore imperative for the United States to survive in the global
marketplace.
America can no longer deny the promise of embryonic stem cells. When a fellow human
is in pain, compassion dictates their aid—not the futile preservation of that which may almost
never live. Potential benefits cannot be denied; through numerous vaccines, fetal tissue has
proven its ability to save lives. Adult cells cannot match the efficacy of embryonic cells because
the two are fundamentally different. Nor is private or state-funded research appropriate, for
lacking rigorous NIH Guidelines, such research can hope to be neither efficient nor ethical.
Thus, no alternative can supplant embryonic research. As former President Bill Clinton
articulated, “[W]e cannot walk away from the potential to save lives and improve lives, to help
people literally get up and walk, to do all kinds of things we could never have imagined.”29 The
fundamental duty of a government is to protect its people. As a pluralistic democracy, the United
States has the moral obligation to obviate the suffering of its people; the United States has the
29
qtd. in George 791.