In Support of Embryonic Stem Cell Research

1 - In his rebuttal, it is mentioned that adult stem cells would show much more promise than embryonic stem cells. While I can appreciate this to an extent, it should also be known that the term "adult stem cells" is often used very broadly and may include fetal and cord blood stem cells (1), which I would think would be just as much of a moral and ethical dilemma for those that choose to look at it from an ideological and/or religious perspective. Also, adult stem cells are generally less flexible and versatile than embryonic stem cells. Embryonic stem cells have a far greater differentiation potential than adult stem cells simply because embryonic stem cells can develop into almost every type of cell in the human body. Conversely, adult stem cells may only develop into a limited number of cell types, so their potential applications are not as great as embryonic stem cells. Newer studies do, however, suggest that adult stem cells may have greater plasticity than was originally thought, which means that they may be able to differentiate into a greater range of specialized cell types. At present, however, it would appear that embryonic stem cells still have the advantage in their ability to differentiate more readily than adult stem cells. Embryonic stem cells are capable of almost unlimited division, or proliferation, when placed in a culture whereas adult stem cells do not multiply so readily. Stem cell replacement therapies require large numbers of cells and the current difficulty in growing large numbers of adult cells means that their use for therapy at present is limited (4). * It's also been pointed out that HSCT was an example of adult stem cell research, which is a valid point and one that I accept. Since I've done further research regarding this method (2)(3), I will rule that point that I made as invalid. 2 - The next argument Con makes is for the ethics of the matter, in which I say it's irrelevant. Opponents of embryonic stem cell research compare the destruction of an embryo to an abortion. They believe that the embryo constitutes life because it has the potential to fully develop into a human being. Those against embryonic stem cell use believe that is it immoral and unethical to destroy one life to save another. By using stem cells and discarding the embryo, it is thought that human life is ultimately de-valued by this act and is paving a slippery slope for further scientific procedures that similarly de-value life. In particular, many religious groups who are adamantly pro-life have condemned embryonic stem cell research and all of its applications. Other arguments against embryonic stem cells cite the fact that adult stem cells are the ones currently being used in therapies and thus, there is no need to even venture into embryonic stem cell territory. I say that if the toss up is between adult stem cells, (which are more likely to have abnormalities from DNA mutations, which can occur due to any number of factors) and embryonic stem cells (whose "youth" means that they are less likely to carry mutations and they also regenerate much more quickly than adult stem cells), I'll take the latter, as it shows an overwhelmingly higher potential to treat disease (4). As a supporter of embryonic stem cell research, I believe that an embryo is not equivalent to human life because it is inside the womb. Embryonic stem cells are blank cells that have not yet been categorized or programmed by the body, and can be prompted to generate any of the 220 human cell types. Supporters also contend that the societal costs of many diseases and conditions, both in monetary and suffering aspects, means that the ethical concerns regarding embryonic stem cell usage are not sufficient to warrant discontinuation of this promising therapy. Another argument for embryonic stem cell research is that the embryos are leftover from in-vitro fertilization and would otherwise be destroyed, so they should instead be put to greater use. Even further down the line in development is the belief that those embryos from legal abortions, which have already been destroyed, would be better used to advance human health rather than simply discarded. 3 - Finally, the Con is against government funding for embryonic stem cell research. If stem cell research were federally funded, the government would have the ability to establish clear regulations and guidelines about the use of the money. Therefore, the government can more easily enforce ethical research practices. Gov can require that researchers comply to regulations in order to receive the funding and can monitor the practices. For example, the a government agency can ensure that all embryos are obtained with consent from in vitro fertilization clinics and that no embryos are sold for a profit. These practices are harder to monitor if money is gained from private funding and the government is not directly involved. In addition, with the plethora of often contradictory laws surrounding stem cell research, the government can eradicate the moral and legal gray area in which embryonic stem cell researchers are trapped. The laws for stem cell research are very confusing and vary greatly between states. For example, according to the American Center for Progress, ""until November 2008, when voters amended the state constitution, it was illegal in Michigan to derive embryonic stem cells because the state constitution banned the destruction of embryos for research. As a result, researchers at Michigan"s large and prestigious state universities had to import cells from out of state" (5). Federal funding would streamline the legal aspect of embryonic stem cell research and help eliminate the unnecessary bureaucracy on both state and federal levels. Hopefully states with restrictions or bans on research would remove them when presented with the opportunity to receive financial support from the federal government (5). The science aspect of stem cells is already complex and difficult enough without the added nuisances created by the current laws. Promising researchers are reluctant to invest time and resources into studying stem cells if there is the possibility it could become illegal and they had to discontinue their work because it would involve wasted time and money. Federal funding gives researchers the money necessary to carry out tests while simultaneously creating an incentive to scientists to pursue the study of stem cells. Moreover, the researchers would have a sense of security knowing they are not actively breaking the law in the name of science. With this research we could save millions. If anything, however, I do think that we should have a budget on how much our government should be allowed to spend on these health care advancements. In closing, I have shown how embryonic stem cell research ultimately does more good than harm. As we can logically see the most obvious explanation is that embryonic stem cell research is a venture to be explored in earnest. I have shown and demonstrated this with factual evidence throughout this debate. Thank you for your time. (1) . http://www.closerlookatstemcells.org... (2) . http://en.wikipedia.org... (3) . http://embryo.asu.edu... (4) . http://www.explorestemcells.co.uk... (5) . http://www.americanprogress.org...