Op-Ed
Embryonic Stem Cell Research: Should Federal Funding be Expanded?
Email: 
Share: 
Embryonic stem cell research has long invited criticism and controversy. There are questions that surround the ethics as well as the effectiveness of the procedures. These uncertainties led to President Bush’s August 9th, 2001 embryonic stem cell research guidelines. These criteria include:
• The derivation process (which begins with the destruction of the embryo) was initiated prior to 9:00 p.m. EDT on August 9, 2001.
• The stem cells must have been derived from an embryo that was created for reproductive purposes and was no longer needed.
• Informed consent must have been obtained for the donation of the embryo, and that donation must not have involved financial inducements.
Bush’s plan is effective because it limits the destruction of embryos without ruling stem cell research illegal. Scientific purposes are still served without further infringing on the sanctity of human life.
There are three different types of stem cells that can be used for scientific research. These are adult stem cells obtained from bone marrow in the hip, child stem cells obtained from the pulp behind baby teeth and umbilical cord blood stem cells. It has not been proven that adult stem cells are any less effective than embryonic stem cells. Embryonic stem cells are thought to be pluripotent, meaning that they can replicate any type of cell in the body instead of just replicating the cells which they came from. This has not been proven, however; it is merely assumed due to the pluripotency of rat embryonic stem cells. At this point, research has not proved that embryonic stem cells lead to more significant results than adult stem cells in the study, prevention or treatment of disease.
One of the primary concerns regarding embryonic stem cell research is that of funding. Bush’s plan also allows for privately funded embryonic stem cell research. He only stipulated that government funding cannot be used for embryonic stem cell research, and it should not be. Why should the taxes of embryonic stem cell research opponents be used to fund it? Unlike abortions, which are paid by medical insurance, and not the taxes of the American public, embryonic stem cell research would be funded by government money that comes from taxes. You would think that the allowance of privately funded research would be acceptable, yet it does not appear to be enough. Some argue that private companies will not conduct the research because it is not immediately profitable. Perhaps privately funded companies don’t conduct significant embryonic stem cell research because they know it will not yield significant results.
Despite Bush’s concession to not regulate private companies, some argue that private companies do not have the same motivations of public health and medical breakthroughs that federal scientists have, and so would not devote the time, money and energy needed to make the research profitable. If this is the case, maybe they’re on to something. Why is it necessary to use embryonic stem cells when there are other, more available and less controversial forms that can be used?
Regardless of funding issues, types of stem cells or how they’re obtained and grown, the bottom line is that embryonic stem cell research kills a human life. For those who are pro-life and believe that life begins at conception, embryonic stem cell research is equivalent to murder. The embryo will become a baby, who should not be destroyed purely for scientific research or for any other reason. Embryonic stem cell research leads to the devaluation of human life. Where do we draw the line? If we allow stem cell research on left over zygotes that are a byproduct of in vitro fertilization, what is to prevent scientists to begin growing their own stem cells, or starting to harvest eggs merely for the purpose of creating research zygotes? How many little lives will be created and destroyed in the name of science?
The number of conservatives who believe that embryonic stem cell research is equivalent to abortion is higher than others would have you believe. Most hold that embryonic research, and the harvesting of zygotes for scientific research is morally reprehensible. However, there is a small minority who oppose embryonic stem cell research on any terms. Many conservatives are on board with President Bush’s plan that allows for regulated, limited government funded, embryonic stem cell research. As far as privately funded and conducted embryonic stem cell research, the majority that Ben mentions does not oppose this, since their own money is not being used to fund it. Yet it is important to remember that a concession is not the same as support.
In summary, embryonic stem cell research is not only unnecessary, unproven and unacceptable, it is also morally depraved. While many scientists believe that embryonic stem cell research could lead to new breakthroughs in disease prevention and control, this is unproven. If privately funded companies would like to explore these possibilities, go ahead. But the government has no right to use federal tax dollars to support a morally questionable practice. Instead, the government should focus on other types of stem cells which can be obtained from consenting adults, without risking anyone’s life. Perhaps if they focused more on these areas, adult stem cells would lead to the same life-saving results as those found in embryonic rat stem cells. Despite Bush’s sometimes questionable administration, the veto on embryonic stem cell research is not only necessary, but also generous. Bush has not outlawed embryonic research, only federally funded research. Despite the possible — yet unproven — benefits of embryonic stem cell research, the destruction of a human life is deplorable. Allowing the destruction of fertilized embryos, embryos which could have been children, even for scientific purposes, is morally and ethically unacceptable.
Hannah Stearns is a senior in the College of Arts and Sciences. She can be reached at hes32@cornell.edu. Paint the Town Red appears alternate Mondays.
use of federal tax dollars?
you mean like fighting a bogus war when we we could be doing so many more things with that money to improve people's lives here at home? One could also argue that the government has no right to spend my tax dollars on bombs instead of education and healthcare for my kids. But, nonetheless, they appease corporations instead of citizens. oh, wait, forgot, corporations are considered citizens under the law.
Be consistent. If "conservatives" oppose stemcell research because it kills, then they should also organize and make as big a stink about killing people through wars or capital punishment. They should also mobilize to improve education in poor communities which may reduce violence and drugs, plagues that also kill our fellow humans. How about free healthcare for Americans to prevent death and disease among the country's poor, children in particular?
Stem cell research is an ideologically loaded political issue, which is why people spend so much time discussing it. How moral is the recent law passed by george bush in the war on terror? If the ends justify the means in such a case, then why don't the ends of paraplegics possibly walking (and other advances like transplants) justify stem cell research? Be consistend in your invocation of morality.
Unproven?
Of course the promise of stem-cell research is unproven; that's why more research and experimentation is needed. Your use of the word "unproven" implies impossibility, and I disagree strongly. Unproven and unprovable are two different concepts, and to mix the two is disingenuous. I can understand and respect disapproval of stem-cell research on moral or personal grounds, but to use a pseudoscientific straw man argument insults the intelligence of the the reader and undermines your own persuasiveness.
I can't believe how
I can't believe how shortsighted this article is... this is such a pity from my alma mater, such a great research institution.
"This has not been proven, however; it is merely assumed due to the pluripotency of rat embryonic stem cells."
do you realize how many breakthroughs and nobel prizes have come using the rat model?! Unlikely? Look at an even more unrelated species, drosophila melanogaster, the common fruit fly, which itself has led to many nobels, and much understanding about human genetics and development. As another poster pointed out, absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence. The fact that it has "not been proven" means that it has not YET been proven, and you've implied that it will not EVER be proven. Embryonic stem cell research has the potential to *save* lives, from potential lives that were already on the slate for destruction. This in itself should be impetus to conduct the research and pour federal funds into it. Please leave your pseudoscience out of this and stick to a mere "personal grounds" argument if that's why you're against it.
Good column, disappointing comments
Joe American seems unable to distinguish the difference between deliberately killing embryos and killing enemy soldiers and the consequent unintended, but inevitable, killing of civilians. His objections cannot be taken seriously because his logic is faulty.
Brandon and "Cornell '02, now MD" seem to think that the only way for embryonic stem cell (ESC) research to go forward is for it to be financed by taxpayers. If the supposedly evil, greedy drug industry thought it could make a buck on ESC cures, they would be all over it. What Hannah doesn't mention is that many successful treatments already exist using adult stem cells, and that research with ESC has been uniformly unsuccessful and has sometimes resulted in disasters.
The larger ethical consideration, however, is whether human life (and, for that matter, other life) has intrinsic value - ie. is is valuable in and of itself regardless of its contribution to the well-being of others. If so, then where does this intrinsic value come from? If not, why shouldn't we eliminate all inconvenient, unwanted human life or use it to perpetuate our own?
Basis of Federal Support
There have been comments posted here questioning the morality of stem cell research, the government's consistency (or lack thereof) in its regard of human life--as an aside: Rick, the government does not believe in the intrinsic value of human life, that's why the death penalty still exist.
The government is bound by laws, just like the citizens, which apply to scientific research as well. No one can propose to torture human beings to record their responses for a project on human psychology, it is amoral and ILLEGAL. Leaving aside the preposterousness of the claim that fetuses who would otherwise be born will be killed for this research, notice that the killing of fetuses, as the pro-lifers like to call it, is LEGAL in this country. If you don't like it, it's usually (respectfully) due to your religion, which is one of many in the US. The US thankfully does NOT have an official religion, thus cannot have an official religious standpoint. Muslims and Jews (not to mention people of countless other religious persuasions as well as atheists and agnostics) do not mind abortions up to X number of days after conception. You can argue that the government has to ensure that the basic moral standards of all religions should be supported. Well, try "research that involves female researchers or subjects without religious headdress will not get federal funding." Ooops!
In a secular country it is not up to the government on any level to have a stand based on religious doctrine. It is a government's duty to support science, not to repress it. Not on religious grounds anyway.
Nice try
Scientist is using a typical secularist trick used to silence the opposition. All s/he has to do is declare that religious reasoning is off-limits in the political sphere and s/he does not have to answer my arguments.
By any coherent functional definition of religion, secularism qualifies as a religion. The US government is neither secular nor Christian nor Jewish nor Muslim, it is a democratic republic - at least to the extent that the judicial branch refrains from legislation.
Not being a person, the US Government doesn't "believe" things. People believe things, and they vote based on their beliefs. The death penalty still exists because that was the result of the political process. And it is perfectly consistent to believe that human life has intrinsic value and believe that in some cases it is necessary to take a human life. The issue is the reason given for taking that life. Is it that you would like to use that life's cells or body parts for research or to enhance another life's health, or is it that that life has shown a sufficiently heinous contempt for the lives of others that justice requires its termination.