Human Stem Cell Research

Stem Cell research has caused a lot of commotion in the scientific, religious and political fields of our society. The controversies surrounding this scientific research and its methods have however pushed scientists to find less methods to reach the same results, but for the purpose of this blog, I have chosen to discuss the initial scientific purpose of stem cell research and what made it so disapproving.

Stem cells are incredible assets created by the human body. They have the remarkable potential to develop into many different cell types in the body during early life and growth. In addition, in many tissues they serve as a sort of internal repair system, dividing essentially without limit to replenish other cells as long as the person or animal is still alive. When a stem cell divides, each new cell has the potential either to remain a stem cell or become another type of cell with a more specialized function, such as a muscle cell, a red blood cell, or a brain cell. Stem cells can help people who are suffering from Cerebral Palsy, Leukemia, Pancreatic problems such as diabetes and cystic fibrosis.

Extracting human embryonic stem cells begins with in vitro fertilization where a woman's ova and a man's sperm are made to fertilize in controlled setting. in-vitro fertilization procedure is usually done for couples having fertility problems and typically 24 ovas are extracted from the woman, but only two or four of them are implanted in the womb. The rest of the embryos are either thrown away, frozen or with the permission of the parents, used for embryonic stem cell research. The reason for such resistance to this research is the fact that extracting stem cells from an embryo results in its destruction and pro-life activists and other religious denominations who believe that human life begins with fertilization, consider this method as murder. The ironic part of about this debate is that most of the frozen embryos are never needed or they are destroyed in the process of thawing. As humans, most religions believe that our first priority must be to conserve life, but is improving the lives of those dying of debilitating diseases out of the question?

Personally, as a scientist, I do not believe in absoluteness which is the reason why i was not on the extreme left side of the spectrum, but I do find myself at lost when it comes to the topic of human stem cell research. I am a supporter of reproductive rights, approve of pro choice and in- vitro fertilization, but I find myself second guessing myself when it comes to stem cell research because the concept of when life begins is not certain to me. I do not believe in a perfect cause because there is no such thing as perfection, but arguing for one cause or another requires belief in perfection. Stem cell harvesting does require embryonic stem cells for the best results, and it is my belief that the embryos that are in storage for years are better used by giving a mentally challenged child suffering from Cerebral Palsy a chance to heal or a person suffering from Leukemia can be saved. In this context, I am thinking more of the greater good, which may not be sufficient of an argument for those who consider the human rights of the fetus.
Most people think that the conflict between religion and science is unnecessary and unhealthy for the society, but I believe that every theory and belief needs a challenger so they can hone their arguments and even work for a better understanding of what the followers truly stand for. new development in stem cell research proves that religious activists have in fact pushed science to find other routes to avoid ethical conflict. For example, recent studies show that stem cells can be harvested from amniotic fluids as well as through the umbilical cord of a newly born. With the permission of the parents, scientist can harvest stem cells from the umbilical chord since it is usually discarded after the birth. Embryonic stem cells still provide the best result but with diligence and growing support for the newly designed harvesting method, it is a matter of time before scientist find a new way to increase the effectiveness of post embryonic stem cells.

The question that I believe is important is that if religious pro life activists had not protested against embryonic stem cell harvesting, would scientists have pushed themselves to find alternative routes to similar results?