Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research: Federal Funding or Not?

The field of medical research is a fast paced discipline.  Researchers are always searching for ways to unlock solutions to incurable diseases. In recent years, they may have found the key: human embryonic stem cells. However, utilizing these "special" cells has raised many ethical questions. Human embryonic stem cell research should be funded by the federal government because of the many benefits that could possibly come from conducting clinical trials.

Introduction to HESC Research

        Sue Freeman began to lose her vision during her early fifties due to dry macular degeneration, the leading cause of blindness. In 2012, Freeman received a trial operation involving human embryonic stem cells (HESCs). The experimental surgery injected HESCs into both of Sue’s eyes’ retinas, with the hope to improve her vision. The decision turned out to be successful. Within weeks, she noticed changes in brightness of colors and clarity of figures.

As technology continues to advance, the medical field also continues to find new innovative ways to research. Over the past twenty years, researchers have experimented in a type of controversial research: the use of HESCs. This research has created a debate based on ethics, morality, and the “black-and-white” definition of when life begins. Supporters and opponents endure to strongly argue their views on the topic. Despite the differences, this type of research has the potential ability to produce monumental findings in the world of medicine.

HESC research should receive federal funding because of the many benefits that could possibly come from conducting clinical trials. Experiments utilizing HESCs could produce many needed cures, repair traumatizing injuries, and rebuild new organs within the body. With the use of HESCs, the field of medicine could see drastic beneficial discoveries.

Background of Federal Limitations

     Over the past three presidencies, the regulation of federal funding for HESC research has fluctuated depending on which political party held office. President Clinton established a lenient federal policy, which was then choked off by President Bush’s administration. However, on March 9, 2009, President Obama reversed the restriction on HESC research by signing an Executive Order that lifted the ban on federal funding for the research. In his address, President Obama reminded citizens that even though “the full promise of stem cell research remains unknown . . . these tiny cells have the potential to help us understand, and possibly cure, some of the most devastating diseases and conditions.”

Opposing Viewpoints

Opposers of HESC research disagree with President Obama’s decision. People against HESC research indicate that after twenty years of previous experimentations, no significant advancements have occurred. Because of this, contenders question if the research should continue. They suggest that when using embryonic stem cells, the destruction of a human embryo occurs. Those against HESC research make the analogy of the human embryo destruction to the murder of an unborn child; therefore, embryos possess the same basic human rights as any other individual. “Some people see the creation of an embryo as the creation of life, so to terminate that life would equate to murder.”

Another problem rivals raise relates to a substitution factor. Groups ask why different types of stem cells are not used in place of the embryonic stem cells, such as adult or umbilical cord stem cells. Opponents reason that adult stem cells possess some of the same qualities of embryonic stem cells, meaning that they too can become like other cells of the body. Adult and embryonic stem cells both hold two unique properties including: the ability to replicate and create multiple stem cells and form into different cell types of the body.

Challengers question the fact of the fertility clinics destroying the embryos. They request that the excess embryos could easily be donated to couples who may have trouble with reproduction. Opponents also call attention to the idea that using HESCs for research does not promise a cure for chronic and supposed incurable conditions such as traumatic brain injuries, spinal cord injuries, and liver disease. Dr. Enke argues “that embryonic stems cells are not guaranteed to produce any curative treatments,” and that “there are unrealistic expectations,” in reference to HESC research.

Supporting Refutations

In response to the challenging views of disputants, there exists a response with a more convincing line of reasoning. The scientific definition of an embryo is a group of week-old cells, known as blastocysts. With this definition, an argument can be made that the cluster of cells does not represent a human being. “Those in support of embryonic stem cell research claim that the week-old blastocysts from which embryonic stem cells are derived are merely a cluster of cells and thus do not constitute a human being. Because these cells are ‘not human,’ the embryos should not be afforded the same human rights as are granted to other more advanced stages of cell growth.” Furthermore, the embryos used for research come from the numerous left-overs from fertility clinics which would have eventually been destroyed anyway. “It is important to recognize that human embryonic stem cells all come from embryos created in excess by fertility clinics. All of these embryos will be destroyed if they are not donated by couples specifically to produce embryonic stem cells for biomedical research.” Glick points out that, “spare embryos are destined to die because they have been created by means of IVF to provide backup in case pregnancy is not successful. The creators of the spare embryos know they will be destroyed. If the embryos possessed the same moral status as children or adults, the creators would be charged with murder or as accomplices to murder.”

Finally, activists make the case that other stem cells do not possess the same qualities as those of an embryonic stem cell. In a study conducted by the Boston Children’s Hospital, researchers have come to the conclusion that reprogrammed adult cells, “known as induced pluripotent stem (IPS) cells, meant to act as blank cells, actually retained characteristics of the tissue that it once was” (Salahi in Hunnicutt 37-8). Research doctors then concluded from these results, “reprogrammed adult cells may not be equivalent to embryonic stem cells” (Salahi in Hunnicutt 38) Because of the undifferentiated, or unspecialized, property HESCs possess, they can become like any other cell in the body which helps in repair work.

Supporting Arguments

     The use of HESC research should be federally funded due to the promising potential of producing many significant cures. Supporters of HESC research propose this field one of the most promising in biomedical research. Because it is thought that the cells can become any tissue of the body, researchers hope cures for diabetes, Alzheimer’s disease, paralysis, and many other diseases will be found. Some scientists predict the finding of cures for Parkinson’s, blindness, and heart disease as well.  Scientists in Britain have made strides in looking for a cure for blindness. Researchers have discovered how to develop and transplant photoreceptors into a patient’s retina allowing them to see. Whiteman states that the “embryonic stem cells could potentially be used to provide an ‘unlimited supply of healthy photoreceptors for retinal cell transplantations to treat blindness in humans.’”

  Numerous other advancements have been made in regards to HESC research and ‘incurable’ diseases. “Using embryonic stem cells, scientists at Northwestern University outside Chicago have made batches of human brain cells (neurons), which are likely to prove valuable in finding drugs that slow the progression of Alzheimer’s disease. The advance may even pave the way for neuron transplants to treat memory loss associated with the incurable neurodegenerative disorder.” This example is just one of the many progresses originating from embryonic stem cell research so far, and the possibilities remain endless.

    In addition to curing numerous diseases, embryonic stem cells possess the ability to aid in the repair of traumatizing accidents. One clinical trial has begun to prove the wonders that these ‘morphing’ cells possess. In 2005, Dr. Keirstead published a study showing results of HESC therapies aiding partially paralyzed rats to walk again. “‘This treatment I designed is for individuals within two weeks of their injury.’” In 2009, Keirstead enrolled ten patients in a clinical trial. The patients will be treated by injecting HESCs into their spinal cords and monitored closely for the following fifteen years. Despite all of the anticipated hype, Dr. Keirstead reminds supporters that the patients will not miraculously walk out of their wheelchairs, substantial results may take time, yet he does believe the trial acts as a huge step in helping the patients regain some movement.

                  

The Future of Funding

     Even though this research has an overwhelming amount of promises, the opposers of HESC research do have a valid argument. This research should receive federal funding, but restrictions should still be in place. For instance, limitations should be made on what kind of HESCs can be utilized and how long is it still considered appropriate to use the blastocysts.

    The potential benefits of HESC research far outweigh the negative aspects. The story of Sue Freeman, mentioned previously, demonstrates one current example of how the uses embryonic stem cells can yield an answer for a medical problem. Research with embryonic stem cells should be federally funded, if it falls in line with proper limitations, due to the potential benefitting results. Conducting tests with the one of a kind cells aids in discovering cures for numerous life-ending diseases, mending devastating wounds, and regenerating structures of the body. “Because nearly one-third of the population could benefit from treatments and therapies that could originate from embryonic stem cell research, many scientists believe that this field could alleviate as much human suffering as the development of antibiotics was able to do.” Challengers should remember Benjamin Franklin did not succeed on his first try discovering electricity. It may take some time before learning of the promising cures involving HESC research. It might even take years to reach the potential benefits, but it will be well worth the wait.