Introduction
Stem cells are unique human cells that are unspecialized and have the potential of renewing themselves through cell division. These cells, under special conditions, are able to differentiate into different forms of cells in the human body during their early life (National Institutes of Health, 2016). It is these properties that scientists based their research of stem cells on. Primarily, scientists worked with the adult stem cells and later with embryonic stem cells; the latter being more popular and controversial as well, even though both act as repair units in the body. Progress in research on adult stem cells has revealed that they can transdifferentiate into other forms of cells other than the cells of tissues from which they originate. The human embryonic stem cells give a great promise in terms of advance in possible treatment of tissues that were damaged by diseases or injuries from the moment that they were first isolated in 1998, when researchers at the University of Wisconsin published an indefinite method of deriving them. They are superior in that they divide rapidly and also have great plasticity. Also, they can cure a wide range of diseases as compared to adult stem cells and modern medicine. However, with the emergence of this new technique based on the human embryo came a lot of resistance and widespread controversy from policy makers as well as pro-life interests (Holm, 2002).
Opposing viewpoints
The opposing viewpoints base their argument on the fact that destroying an embryo is basically destroying a life. This has led to debates surrounding the topic. However, there exists no consensus both in opposing and supporting camps with respect to the exact point at which human life begins. For the pro-life movement, life begins when a sperm cell fertilizes an ovum to form a single cell. They argue that human embryonic stem cell research is unethical because embryos are worthy of protection considering that they are humans but only at a different stage. Further, they claim that the manner in which the human embryos are destroyed and discarded is tantamount to murder. Although embryos, in their current state, do not exhibit properties of a born being, they have the potential to develop into one if given the chance. The Pro-life movement prefers to evidence its argument by citing adult stem cells which they claim to have shown consistency in promising results.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Strengths of human stem cells research
Both sides of the debate have their strengths and weaknesses concerning the topic. In view of research done on stem cells being advantageous, there are factors that support it. Firstly, such kind of research considerably increases the existing knowledge about the basic cell. This knowledge is passed on to other scholars and comes in handy for their studies. Secondly and most importantly, the therapeutic potential of stem cells is what amazes people the most. Stem cells offer the possibility of having a renewable source of growing cells, tissues and organs that can be used for transplantation as well as in treatment of diseases such as macular degeneration and spinal cord injury (National Institutes of Health, 2016). Moreover, they are used to test the safety of new medications. In general, these cells rejuvenate therapies thus increasing life span.
In most cases, the embryos are generated from IVF in large numbers and most of them remain unused. Hence, in the opinion of scientist, using them for research saves them from being otherwise wasted.
Ethical issues
The ethical issues related to the research involving human stem cells are a major weakness to the whole concept. The main ethical issue concerns the fact that in order to generate an embryonic stem cell, an embryo has to be destroyed in the process. Thus, a question as to the status of a human embryo is posed, as well as questions pertaining to whether or not ethical limits relating to the destruction of human embryo for purposes of research exist. At this point, however, there is no jurisdiction in the legislation that claims that human embryo does not have a moral status, neither is there any that states that the human embryo does in fact have a moral status equal to that of a born human being (Holm, 2002). The American firm, Advanced Cell Technology, have tried using ova from different species to check whether they can work equivalently to human ova in terms of functionality and immunologically. Moreover, embryos from such ova will be considered “less human” hence causing minimal controversies.
Strengths and weaknesses of opposing viewpoints.
Looking in the perspective of policy makers and pro-life activists, there are strengths and weaknesses in relation to their point of view. It is important that this camp sticks to protecting human life at all levels and this includes sparing the embryo. It would be hypocritical for them not to champion the interests of the human embryo which holds an actual life potential. Further, they intend to avoid exploitation of women since the ova used for the production of the embryos for research come from them. In an article by the National Institutes of Health (2016), there is an alternative of using adult cells which have been genetically reprogrammed to state that’s embryonic stem cell-like, otherwise known as induced pluripotent stem cells. This way, there will be no need for destroying the embryos. Another one of the strong points of view of the pro-life camp, is the fact that in the past, there have been several scientific innovations which promised too much too early. This particular case will not be an exception. It has been known that some researchers raise false expectations in order to promote their own work. Therefore, it is better to produce results before raising hope to ill patients. (Holm, 2002)
However, this kind of protest hinders the effort made towards stopping human suffering in terms of treatment. If an embryo has the potential to cure a countless number of hopeless patients, then destroying a single embryo is worth it.
As much as many may wish that embryological stem cells be acquired from other sources, there is a challenge of compatibility especially in the sense of immunology. An adult stem cell may be immunologically compatible but it is not certain whether or not all other cells can be derived from them. In addition, the adult stem cells may not be sufficient when dealing with acute cases of illness. If the adult stem cells research could provide therapies for all the conditions in which stem therapy is applicable, then it would have been the only supported research thus making it easy for policy makers.
Conclusion
After analyzing both sides of the debate concerning the human stem cells research, I evidently agree with the scientists whose sole vision is to create a better future in the field of medicine and biology. According to Holm (2002), giving moral status does not automatically rule out research on the embryonic stem cell. The likely benefits will require a strong argument to be ruled out. Nonetheless, there are several ways that have been created to solve the differences between those supporting the research and those against it. For instance, researchers at Advanced Cell Technology of Worcester, Massachusetts, were able to obtain stem cells from an experimental mouse without destroying the embryo. This shades light to the future that soon this will be able to apply to humans.
Reference
National Institutes of Health, 2016. Stem Cell Basics . US Department of Health Services.
Holm, S., 2002. Going to the roots of the Stem Cell Controversy . Blackwell Publishers
