Stem Cell Controversy The stem cell controversy is the ethical debate centered only on research involving the

creation, usage and destruction of human embryos. Most commonly, this controversy focuses on embryonic stem cells. 1 Background 2 Viewpoints 2.1 Endorsement 2.1.1 Human potential and humanity 2.1.2 Efficiency 2.1.3 Superiority 2.1.4 Beginning of life 2.2 Objection 2.2.1 Value of life 2.2.2 Better alternatives 3 Stated views of groups 3.1 Governmental policy stances in Europe 3.2 Governmental Policy debate in the United States 3.2.1 Origins 3.2.2 U.S. Congressional response 3.2.3 Funding Background Since stem cells have the ability to differentiate into any type of cell, they offer something in the development of medical treatments for a wide range of conditions. Treatments that have been proposed include treatment for physical trauma, degenerative conditions, and genetic diseases (in combination with gene therapy). Yet further treatments using stem cells could potentially be developed thanks to their ability to repair extensive tissue damage. Viewpoints The status of the human embryo and human embryonic stem cell research is a controversial issue as, with the present state of technology, the creation of a human embryonic stem cell line requires the destruction of a human embryo. Stem cell debates have motivated and reinvigorated the pro-life movement, whose members are concerned with the rights and status of the embryo as an early-aged human life. They believe that embryonic stem cell research instrumentalizes and violates the sanctity of life and is tantamount to murder. The fundamental assertion of those who oppose embryonic stem cell research is the belief that human life is inviolable, combined with the fact that human life begins when a sperm cell fertilizes an egg cell to form a single cell.

Endorsement Human potential and humanity Embryos are not equivalent to human life while they are still incapable of surviving outside the womb (i.e. they only have the potential for life). More than a third of zygotes do not implant after conception. Thus, far more embryos are lost due to chance than are proposed to be used for embryonic stem cell research or treatments. Blastocysts are a cluster of human cells that have not differentiated into distinct organ tissue; making cells of the inner cell mass no more "human" than a skin cell. Some parties contend that embryos are not humans, believing that the life of Homo sapiens only begins when the heartbeat develops, which is during the 5th week of pregnancy, or when the brain begins developing activity, which has been detected at 54 days after conception. Efficiency In vitro fertilization (IVF) generates large numbers of unused embryos (e.g. 70,000 in Australia alone).Many of these thousands of IVF embryos are slated for destruction. Using them for scientific research utilizes a resource that would otherwise be wasted. While the destruction of human embryos is required to establish a stem cell line, no new embryos have to be destroyed to work with existing stem cell lines. It would be wasteful not to continue to make use of these cell lines as a resource.[ Abortions are legal in many countries and jurisdictions. A logical argument follows that if these embryos are being destroyed anyway, why not use them for stem cell research or treatments? Superiority This is usually presented as a counter-argument to using adult stem cells as an alternative that doesn't involve embryonic destruction. Embryonic stem cells make up a significant proportion of a developing embryo, while adult stem cells exist as minor populations within a mature individual (e.g. in every 1,000 cells of the bone marrow, only 1 will be a usable stem cell). Thus, embryonic stem cells are likely to be easier to isolate and grow ex vivo than adult stem cells. Embryonic stem cells divide more rapidly than adult stem cells, potentially making it easier to generate large numbers of cells for therapeutic means. In contrast, adult stem cell might not divide fast enough to offer immediate treatment.

 Embryonic stem cells have greater plasticity, potentially allowing them to treat a wider range of diseases. Beginning of life Before the primitive streak is formed when the embryo attaches to the uterus at approximately 14 days after fertilization, a single fertilized egg can split in two to form identical twins, or a pair of embryos that would have resulted in fraternal twins can fuse together and develop into one person (a tetragametic chimera). Since a fertilized egg has the potential to be two individuals or half of one, some believe it can only be considered a potential person, not an actual one. Those who subscribe to this belief then hold that destroying a blastocyst for embryonic stem cells is ethical. Objection Value of life The deliberate destruction of a human embryo is typically interpreted as being incompatible with Roman Catholic doctrine. Based upon these interpretations, some Catholics have suggested that human blastocysts are inherently valuable and should not be voluntarily destroyed Better alternatives This argument is used by opponents of embryonic destruction as well as researchers specializing in adult stem cell research. It is often claimed by pro-life supporters that the use of adult stem cells from sources such as umbilical cord blood has consistently produced more promising results than the use of embryonic stem cells.Furthermore, adult stem cell research may be able to make greater advances if less money and resources were channeled into embryonic stem cell research. This argument remains hotly debated on both sides. Those critical of embryonic stem cell research point to a current lack of practical treatments, while supporters argue that advances will come with more time and that breakthroughs cannot be predicted. Stated Views of Group Governmental policy stances in Europe Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, and Ireland do not allow the production of embryonic stem cell lines, but the creation of embryonic stem cell lines is permitted in Finland, Greece, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.

Governmental Policy debate in the United States Origins In 1973, Roe v. Wade legalized abortion in the United States. Five years later, the first successful human in vitro fertilization resulted in the birth of Louise Brown in England. These developments prompted the federal government to create regulations barring the use of federal funds for research that experimented on human embryos. U.S. Congressional response In April 2004, 206 members of Congress signed a letter urging President Bush to expand federal funding of embryonic stem cell research beyond what Bush had already supported. In May 2005, the House of Representatives voted 238-194 to loosen the limitations on federally funded embryonic stem-cell research by allowing government-funded research on surplus frozen embryos from in vitro fertilization clinics to be used for stem cell research with the permission of donors despite Bush's promise to veto the bill if passed. On March 9, 2009, President Obama repealed a ban enacted under President Bush, thus allowing federal funds to be applied beyond what was authorized for funding under the previous president. Two days after Obama reversed the ban, the President then signed the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009, which still contained the long-standing Dickey-Wicker provision which bans federal funding of "research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death Funding In 2005 the NIH funded $607 million worth of stem cell research, of which $39 million was specifically used for hESC. Sigrid Fry-Revere has argued that private organizations, not the federal government, should provide funding for stem-cell research, so that shifts in public opinion and government policy would not bring valuable scientific research to a grinding halt[ In 2005 the State of California took out 3 billion dollars in bond loans to fund embryonic stem cell research in that state.

References:

Not all stem cell research involves the creating, using and destroying human embryos. Stem cell research, for example adult stem cells or induced pluripotent stem cells, which do not involve creating, using or destroying human embryos is less controversial. 2. Stem Cells for Tissue Regeneration and Joint Repair Science Daily 29th march 2006. 3. C.Cowan, J. Atienza, D. Melton and K. Eggan. (August 26, 2005) "Nuclear reprogramming of somatic cells after fusion with human embryonic stem cells." Science, 309:1369. 4. Takahashi K and Yamanaka S (2006). "Induction of Pluripotent Stem Cells from Mouse Embryonic and Adult Fibroblast Cultures by Defined Factors". Cell 126: 663676. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2006.07.024. 5. Irina Klimanskaya, Young Chung, Sandy Becker, Shi-Jiang Lu & Robert Lanza. (August 23, 2006) "Human embryonic stem cell lines derived from single blastomeres." Nature. doi:10.1038. 6. ABC News: ABC News 7. ScienceNOW - REUTERS: U.S. Company Says Grows Embryo-Safe Stem Cells 8. Clout, Laura; and Agencies (2007-09-01). ""Scientists report alternative stem cell source"". Daily Telegraph (UK). http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/08/ustem108.xml. Retrieved 2007-09-20. 9. "The stated reason for President Bush's objection to embryonic stem cell research is that 'murder is wrong'" (BBC) 10. Weiss, Rick. (May 8, 2003) "400,000 Human Embryos Frozen in U.S.," Washington Post. Retrieved August 24, 2006. 11. Connolly, Ceci. (July 30, 2005) "Frist Breaks With Bush On Stem Cell Research." Washington Post. Retrieved August 24, 2006. 12. "NIH Publishes Final Guidelines for Stem Cell Research". National Institutes of Health. 2000. http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/aug2000/od-23.htm. Retrieved 2007-04-29. 13. "Deriving Stem Cells Without Killing Embryo". Medical News Today. 2006. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/healthnews.php?newsid=50329. Retrieved 2007-1226. 14. "New stem cell breakthrough". inthenews.co.uk. 2007. http://www.inthenews.co.uk/news/autocodes/countries/japan/new-stem-cellbreakthrough-$1169327.htm. Retrieved 2007-12-26. 15. "Biologists Make Skin Cells Work Like Stem Cells". The New York Times. 2007. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/06/science/06cnd-cell.html?_r=1&oref=slogin. Retrieved 2007-12-26. 16. "Scientists Use Skin To Create Stem Cells". The Washington Post. 2007. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2007/06/06/AR2007060601345.html. Retrieved 2007-12-26. 17. "Scientists Convert Mouse Skin Cells to Stem Cells". Public Broadcasting Service. 2007. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/jan-june07/stemcell_06-07.html. Retrieved 2007-12-26.

1.

"Arguments For Stem cell Research". Spinneypress. 2006. http://web.archive.org/web/20080201224807/http://www.spinneypress.com.au/178_book _desc.html. Retrieved 2007-12-26. 19. Raymond J. Devettere. Practical Decision Making in Health Care Ethics 20. Kathleen Stassen Berger. The Developing Person Through the Life Span 21. Greenfield, Marjorie. Dr. Spock.com". Retrieved 2007-01-20. 22. Singer, Peter. Rethinking life & death: the collapse of our traditional ethics, page 104 (St. Martins Press 1996). Retrieved 2007-03-04. 23. West, Michael D.(2005) The Ethics of Genetic Engineering (At Issue Series). (pp 100107) USA: Thomson Gale 24. Prof. Juan de Dios Vial Correa, S.E. Mons. Elio Sgreccia (2000-08-25). "Scientific and Therapeutic Use of Human Embryonic Stem Cells". Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdlife/documents/rc_pa_acdlif e_doc_20000824_cellule-staminali_en.html. Retrieved 2008-02-20. 25. Jessie Beauchaine (17 June 2009). "The next frontier of the stem cell debate: 'Snowflake' babies, embryo 'adoption,' and being preborn again'". The Village Voice. http://www.villagevoice.com/2009-06-17/news/the-next-frontier-of-the-stem-celldebate/. Retrieved 2009-06-26. 26. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). Findlaw.com. Retrieved 2007-05-15 27. Prentice, David. (October 17, 2005) "Live Patients & Dead Mice". Christianity Today. Retrieved on August 24, 2006. 28. The Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics. "The "Political Science" of Stem Cells". Retrieved on July 16, 2006. 29. Clarke, Michael F. and Michael W. Becker. (July 2006). "Stem Cells: The Real Culprits in Cancer?" Scientific American. Retrieved on August 8, 2006. 30. Anonymous (September 24, 2006) "Cloning/Embryonic Stem Cells." National Human Genome Research Institute. Retrieved September 24, 2006. 31. Cyranoski. "Simple switch turns cells embryonic". Nature 6 June 2007. 32. a b "As noted before, the production of hESC lines is currently illegal in Germany; the 1990 Embryo Protection Act prohibits any utilization of the embryo that does not serve its preservation. ... Ireland, Austria, Denmark and France prohibit any production of hESC lines...Finland, Greece, the Netherlands, Sweden and the UK allow the production of hESC lines from surplus IVF embryos."Peter M. Wiedemann, Judith Simon, Silke Schicktanz & Christof Tannert (2004). "The future of stem-cell research in Germany". Nature and the European Molecular Biology Organization. http://www.nature.com/embor/journal/v5/n10/full/7400266.html. 33. ""President Clinton's Comments on NIH and Human Embryo Research"". U.S. National Archives. December 2, 1994. http://clinton6.nara.gov/1994/12/1994-12-02-president-onnih-and-human-embryo-research.html. Retrieved 2006-07-19. 34. The White House, Press Release, August 9, 2001 35. http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/wm749.cfm 36. "A Step Closer to Stem-Cell Heaven". Wired. 2005. http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,67627,00.html. Retrieved 2008-02-28.

18.

abcd efg hijk

37. Connolly, Ceci (of work = July 30, 2005). ""Despite Bush Veto, Stem Cell Research Abounds"". Washington Post: A01. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2005/07/29/AR2005072900158.html. Retrieved 2006-07-21. 38. Kellman, Laurie. ""Senate Approves Embryo Stem Cell Bill"". Associated Press. http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/07/18/D8IUKSRO0.html. Retrieved 2006-07-18. 39. H.R. 457, 110th Congress 40. "Rights of Taxpayers is Missing Element in Stem Cell Debate". The Ron Paul Library. http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=839. 41. S. 5 42. "Senate Approves Embryonic Stem Cell Bill", David Espo, Associated Press, April 12, 2007 43. "Obama overturns Bush policy on stem cells" CNN, March 9, 2009 44. Obama's Stem Cell Policy Hasn't Reversed Legislative Restrictions, Fox News, March 14, 2009 45. Aldhous, Peter (March 2009). "Obama lifts research restrictions on embryonic stem cells". New Scientist (online) (Reed Business Information Ltd). http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16728-obama-lifts-research-restrictions-onembryonic-stem-cells.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news. Retrieved 2009-03-16. "This frees biologists to work with a wide range of human ESCs - including cell lines created with state and private funding. But researchers are not expected to be able to use federal grants to create new cell lines. This is because of a 1996 law called the DickeyWicker amendment...". 46. "Estimates of Funding for Various Diseases, Conditions, Research Areas". National Institutes of Health. 2007. http://www.nih.gov/news/fundingresearchareas.htm. Retrieved 2008-01-21. 47. "Best Hope Lies in Private Stem-Cell Funding". http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8205. Retrieved 2008-01-31. 48. http://cirm.ca.gov/