During the last part of the 20th century, the science community began to do things that only a few years before would have been unimaginable. Since 1981 when embryonic stem cells were first isolated from mouse embryos research in molecular biology involving embryonic stems cells has moved quickly, and just as quickly ethic concerned having a background in Christian religious doctrine has fueled a strongly polarized debate as to whether or not such research is ethical. Research in this area has led to accomplishments such as cloned sheep and offers a novel way to treat disease.
Previously in the United States there was a ban on federal funding for such research, under the Obama administration this has been allowed to expire. (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2013).
Human embryonic stem cells are derived from embryos from the fifth day of an embryo’s development. At this point the cells is refereed to as a blastula and consists of 200-250 cells, many of which have yet to specialize. At this stage of development, the blastula is as conscious and complex as a single celled organism like archaea.
Stem cells have caused a lot of excitement and a fair share of controversy. Scientists speculate that more research on stem cells could lead to novel cures that could alleviate many of the traditional problems of aging that has plagued humanity since it’s inception.
The controversy comes mainly from Catholic Church doctrine which declares that life begins at the moment of conception and that morally speaking destroying a human embryo at any stage of it’s development is against church teaching (History of Stem Cell Research, 2013).
Common arguments against stem cell research are that destroying an embryo that has the potential to grow into a baby is denying that individual the chance at having a life.
Another common argument attacks the science and puts to question whether or not the research will actually lead to the advances in cures that it claims to. In this argument naysayers to stem cell research cite that there has been no evidence that stem cell research will lead to the cures it claims.
Another counter point is that stems cells can be attained from the umbilical cord or the amniotic fluid, and with the discovery of adult stem cells there is no longer any need to get them from embryos. (Health Articles 101, 2013)
These arguments, I do not believe are penetrating enough to cause us to halt research on stem cells. These beliefs come from particular religions, which individual practitioners have the right to not personally pursue stem cell research or receive treatments derived from it. Science sometimes goes after dead ends, but its intentions is one learning which doors lead to advances and which do not. If stem cells seem promising, they should be pursued so that we know if they are. A blastula is as much human life as our fingernails or hair. The argument against, reduced to it’s reducto absurdum, shows how this view makes little logical sense.
If someone truly believes that a blastula has a soul, then they likely believe in the Catholic doctrine that babies who die before the chance to commit sin go straight to heaven. In this view, stem cell research is creating souls that will persist for an eternity and never would have existed without stem cell research.
In the end, science should appeal to it’s own ethics, and not those of a particular religion to guide it.
Works Cited
"Ethics of Stem Cell Research (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. N.p., n.d. Web. 2 May 2013.
"History of Stem Cell Research."Understanding Stem Cell Research and Treatments . N.p., n.d. Web. 2 May 2013. http://www.explorestemcells.co.uk/historystemcellresearch.html
"Top 10 Arguments Against Stem Cell Research." Health Articles 101. N.p., n.d. Web. 2 May 2013.
