Reagan 1

Lowell Reagan
English 101
Professor Bolton
11/17/2014
Tradition of Suffering or New Age Hope
In todays society, there have been many controversial topics to speak about as of late.
Many of these controversies ever stemming from scientific backgrounds, one of the most popular
being the research and application of embryonic stem cell research. The eBook by John Harris
explains, In terms of terms of social and ethical issues, the use of embryos in stem cell research
has continued to generate as much controversy as ever. In addition, however, the new
technological horizons opened up by more recent developments in stem cell science has led to
novel ethical questions (Harris 2). In saying this Harris sets the stage for the debate over stem
cell controversy. The research being so new that many people have an immediate distrust of the
subject. A stem cell is a special kind of cell that has not taken a specific cell job. Stem cells are
essentially the building blocks of life, dividing into all the different cells that make up your body
in the early stages of life. Later in life as a human or animal matures these cells act as a selfrepair system in the body. In stem cell research these cells are most commonly acquired directly
from drilling in the bone, taken from adipose tissue (lipid cells), or by apheresis from the blood.
Once these cells are acquired they can be basically rewritten to perform many different
functions. Stem cells are unique for their advanced properties of self-renewal and cell potency.
Cellular potency is referring to the stem cells potential to differentiate into different cell types.
These self-replicating template cells can practically be programmed to do just about anything.

Reagan 2

The difference between these normal, or adult stem cells, and embryonic stem cells is the
method and location of extraction and the effectiveness of these cells, this is also where the
controversy is generated. Embryonic stem cells, as their name suggests, are derived from
embryos, particularly when an in vitro fertilized egg reaches the stage of becoming a blastocyst
after approximately five to ten days after fertilization. Compared to embryonic stem cells, adult
cells are much less malleable in their potency and have a tendency to have less self-replicating
ability. This decreases their worth in a regenerative sense. The applications of embryonic stem
cells in the medical field are near endless. On a study basis alone, gaining more of an
understanding of cell division in genetics directly impacts our treatment of cancer and birth
defects. As of right now, stem cells most important medical application is in the field of cellular
regeneration. By using stem cells regenerative applications in cell based therapies; ailing organs
and decaying tissues would no longer need to be treated by transplants that rely on donated
materials. A passage from the article Human Embryonic Stem Cell Debate sums up just a few of
these benefits,
Stem cells, including embryonic stem cells, hold great potential for a totally new
approach to treating disease. Rather than administering a pill or an injection, which tends
to manage symptoms rather than offer a cure (although surgery can do that in some
cases), stem cells can repair or restore damaged tissue. It is not just a question of patching
up aging bodies; hESCs could transform the lives of young people affected by diabetes,
genetic blindness, or spinal cord injury (Aldridge Human Embryonic Stem Cell
Debate).
This articles passage tells of stem cells presenting the possibility of a renewable resource to
fight many diseases. Along with the direct benefits of embryonic stem cell research is the other

Reagan 3

fields it helps advance. Using stem cells as a genetic testing platform many new medicines and
treatments to see how they affect the human body. Now, even in light of all these benefits and
the potential to benefit mankind some would still argue against this research. Groups and
institutions continue to call such research immoral. They argue that using embryonic stem cells
violate the sanctity of life as well as pointing out the potential negative applications of such
research, I oppose these naysayers in favor of all the benefits embryonic stem cell research and
application provides, now and in the future.
The first and foremost adversary to the continuation of embryonic stem cell research is
the opposition coming from naysayers who take a moral high ground against it. These opposing
groups and individuals equate the use of embryonic stem cells in research and therapies to
abortion or murder in response to the destruction of a developing embryo to acquire the stem
cells they contain. Even this argument in itself does not stand alone as a defining stance against
this research since it is based on another ongoing disagreement between fundamentalist
theological types and present day scholars. The origin of this stance against embryonic stem cell
research comes from the question of when, after the insemination of the egg, is an embryo
considered human and has received the rights and privileges associated. Those against the
research believe that as soon as the moment of inception has passed that the embryo should be
considered human and reap the full benefits and protection that a human life entails. They point
out that the potentiality held within the cell should account for how it is approached by the
scientific field. Pope John Paul II remarked in an ABC news conference about stem cell research
acceptance in America, stating that,
Experience is already showing how a tragic coarsening of consciences accompanies the
assault on innocent human life in the womb, leading to accommodation and acquiescence

Reagan 4

in the face of other related evils, such as euthanasia, infanticide, and most recently,
proposals for the creation for research purposes of human embryos, destined to
destruction in the process. A free and virtuous society, which America aspires to be, must
reject practices that devalue and violate human life at any stage from conception until
natural death.
In this statement to, now former, President Bush and ultimately America, Pope John Paul warns
against the use of stem cells in research almost as a gateway to more acts against the sanctity of
human life and that its continual practice would set an example on how we might justify later
morally damning acts of science. He also is saying that its use in modern science practices
tarnishes the very virtuous foundation that this country was founded on. If we were to adopt the
point of view of these naysayers, the destruction of the embryo would indeed be seen as violating
the sanctity of life. As of right now this directly contradicts existing definitions, laws, and
regulations concerning the development from a fertilized egg, to an embryo, and finally to the
right-protected fetus.
By most definitions, embryonic life is considered to take place anywhere between the
third and eighth week post fertilization. Even the most stringent definitions of the beginning of
embryonic life do not take this before the third week. Keep in mind that an embryo still has no
special protection by law until it becomes a fetus, which is lawfully not considered such until
after week eight. This is due to the, though miniature, formation of all functioning internal
organs and beginnings of a heartbeat. Knowing both these definitions and laws, regulation on
embryonic stem cell research prohibits the acquisition of the cells after the second week of
development. Even with these time limitations present, embryonic stem cell extraction is almost
always done between five to ten days after the formation of the embryo. This is done for optimal

Reagan 5

results in retrieving the stem cells. If they were taken before the five to ten days not as many
stem cells have been formed, if taken after ten days some of the stem cells have already been
programmed and are much less effective in genetic modification. With this knowledge of law
and technicality, opposing factions to the research still wish to hold a moral high ground. To
them, a question is posed. If we are able to access such a life changing research with such great
promise, which has already changed the lives of so many people in ways not though possible
until now, what supposed morals or good intention could justify taking that away? What could
justify the suffering of so many? The decision to oppose such research comes from unexamined
moral sentiments. These are basically conclusions based on feelings unchecked by logic. This
balance between what feels good and what is good are expressed by Michael Novac
catalogued in the book The Stem Cell Controversy: Debating the Issue, And this (embryonic
stem cell research) should cause us great uneasiness, because very often in the moral life, our
feelings and sentiments are horrible guides to right action. It sometimes feels like sheer Hell to
have to do the right thing, and most terribly uncomfortable (Ruse 103). By stating this, Novac
points out that yes, this research is controversial, and it raises suspicion to an individuals moral
code. Though these first emotional reactions must be closely weighed by logic and reason and
that the right thing to do does not come about by accepting what seems to be the easy answer.
Labeling this research as evil or immoral would indeed be the easy thing to do. Why take the
time to weigh out right and wrong if it causes you distress? Why stand up for what is right when
faced with opposition, especially when it could be a whole society judging you for it? Novac
recognizes these factors and sympathizes. This great and controversial technology should not be
accepted in such a vacuum of pure scientific benefit, nor should any in the future. Those in

Reagan 6

opposition to embryonic stem cell research would condemn a lifetime of suffering to those we
know and love over the utilization of a group of cells they deem science is unworthy of.
The second issue concerning embryonic stem cell research, though less advertised, is still
a cause for concern among the researchs opposition. This is the potential for the misuse of stem
cell research, generally focusing around the topic of human cloning. Scientifically, the term
cloning refers to any process involved in making genetic duplicates of preexisting cells. A
variant of these cloning processes are already used in many ways today. The controversy
surrounding the misuse of embryonic stem cells in this way is due to their effectiveness in this
particular field and the ease of possibly using these cells to do just that. This argument against
the research, while still valid, often is done so under the partial ignorance to the decisions being
made in the scientific community. In Joseph Hyders article Government Regulations in
reference to biotechnology had this to say in response, Reproductive human cloning, which
involves creating a genetic copy of a human being, has been banned almost universally (Hyder,
par. 11). What they state is a simple fact. All over the world, by nearly all scientific figures and
institutions, the subject of human cloning is considered the one biggest scientific taboos of our
time. While still being men and women of science, this potential practice of playing God is
taken as one of the most severe misuses of research within the community. With this fact, one
might even say that the support and opposition to embryonic stem cell research have a sort of
common ground to agree upon. The scientific community does not make these decisions in a
vacuum either. An excerpt from www.usnews.com reiterates when they state, But like all
research, work on stem cells needs firm ethical guidelines. That's why scientists have joined with
ethicists, lawyers, and patient advocates to develop the very strict rules that are currently in place
to govern this area of study (Rowley, par. 5). Just like the website says, scientists and

Reagan 7

researchers do not just work off their own opinions when considering the applications of their
research. Second and third party opinions and oversight are completely necessary when making
such weighty decisions. This is of course not to be taken in support of complete scientific
regulation. That is an argument all to itself. Even with embryonic stem cells potential for misuse
in this field, the benefits provided by the fruits of the research and the sheer magnitude of
opposition to its misuse hold it in favor of continual study.
With this new technology and all of its implications weighed against its potential benefits
it is clear to see why such research is a hot topic of public, private, and institutionalized debate.
Both sides of the argument present quality material, though they stem from differing background
a decision on this matter must be made. The ever increasing benefits of this new technology hold
too much promise to be discarded in light of its opposition. When such naysayers raise their
opinions against this research we must then conclude they would damn a lifetime of suffering
upon those here with us, discarding the only hope some people have for a better life in
subservience to their feelings. We need to carefully contemplate whether we as a species
should let tradition dictate our future and the future of all those suffering, or let the collective
logical consensus of a people based on facts and understanding lead the way. The latter, I
believe, will come to a conclusion in favor of embryonic stem cell research.

Reagan 8

Works Cited
Aldridge, Susan. "Human Embryonic Stem Cell Debate." Biotechnology: In Context. Ed. Brenda
Wilmoth Lerner and K. Lee Lerner. Detroit: Gale, 2012. In Context Series. Science in Context.
Web. 14 Nov. 2014.:
Harris, John, Sarah Chan, and Muireann Quigley. Stem Cells : New Frontiers In Science And
Ethics. Toh Tuck Link, World Scientific, 2012. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost). Web. 12 Nov.
2014.
Hyder, Joseph P. "Government Regulations." Biotechnology: In Context. Ed. Brenda Wilmoth
Lerner and K. Lee Lerner. Detroit: Gale, 2012. In Context Series. Science in Context. Web. 3
Nov. 2014.
Rowley, Janet. "Embryonic Stem Cell Research Does Too Much Good To Be Evil." US News.
U.S.News & World Report, 23 Mar. 2009. Web. 09 Nov. 2014.
Ruse, Michael, and Christopher A. Pynes. The Stem Cell Controversy: Debating the Issues.
Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2003. Print.