Why Are We Having A Stem Cell Research Debate?
Oh boy! The stem cell research debate is a toughie - a real political hot potato. Infertility and disease prevention and cure are the main reasons put forward in favor of stem cell research; debate particularly rages over embryonic stem cell research. It may be the most promising type of stem cell research, but critics argue that it is a matter of destroying the life of embryos in order to extract these various stem cells. That, they say, cannot be tolerated, whatever the reason. It is just too high a price to pay, even for the potential that stem cell research offers in terms of cures.
The stem cell research debate has raged since at least the 1990s when scientific advances made this a real medical possibility. Embryonic stem cell research involves the use of embryos that are left over from couples who have used in vitro fertilization to have children. Many couples have several embryos remaining after they have had children. They can choose to discard the remaining material, provide them for research, or donate them to another couple to use for conception. Often, couples do not want to provide them to other couples because they will genetically be the parents of the conceived child or children. Also, discarding is difficult for individuals because this seems extreme. Donating the embryos for stem cell studies has become an option that many people are willing to choose. However, this has not been viewed as purely a matter of personal choice. Experts in health, religion and politics speak on the stem cell research debate on an almost daily basis. Let's look at the two sides of the stem cell research debate: For Stem cell research offers real hope of cures for diseases such as cancer, multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease and much more. It's been heralded as a modern medical miracle by its fans. Embryonic stem cells offer the most potential for this research as they can be divided and multiplied numerous times, isolating specific stem cells and offering the possibility of targeted work on cures or diseases affecting a particular part of the body. They divide much more readily than adult stem cells do, and they are also less likely to be contaminated by environmental factors. Against Many Christians and pro-life campaigners see the stem cell research debate as an easy matter - any process which destroys human life is wrong. In embryonic stem cell research, embryos are divided and therefore 'destroyed' in order to harvest and multiply stem cells. Fundamentalists say that the stem cell research debate is one that we do not need to have, as it is 'playing God'; He created these medical conditions for a purpose so we should not be looking for a cure. They point to the unnerving possibility of human cloning to which stem cell research could potentially lead. Perhaps, though, this hard line stance neglects to consider the medical ethics committees which regulate all stem cell research. The adult stem cell research debate is not so hotly contended by these campaigners as it does not involve destroying embryos - just harvesting stem cells from blood and bone marrow etc. However, doctors argue that the adult stem cells are not as useful for stem cell research as they do not divide as readily and therefore their possibilities for research purposes are limited. So, to split the stem cell research debate into two sides is somewhat artificial. Arguments and the degree of support or opposition vary according to the purposes to which stem cell research might be put, and also whether the research is to be carried out on adult or embryonic stem cells. The fact that this is also a highly regulated practice needs also to be considered. |