Stem Cell Research

In 1996, the United States Congress adopted the Dickey-Wicker Amendment which prohibits the federal government from funding “research in which a human emryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death.” Despite the induction of the amendment, in 1998 James Thompson of the University of Wisconsin released information showing that he had used cells from human embryos, which were then discarded, to devise stem cells, cells that are the initial undeveloped form of all human cells and can therefore be used to replace any damaged, diseased or disabled cell. Upon the release of Thompson’s studies involving stem-cells and the subsequent destruction of human embryos the United States media, health care system and government have been enraptured in a contentious debate over the use of stem-cells and their research. While many individuals, entities and governments are currently involved in a discussion about the ethical use of stem-cells, rather for or against, it is important to understand that not all stem-cell research is considered unethical. The distinction between ethically performing stem-cell research and unethically performing stem-cell research derives from the source of the cell. In human embryonic stem-cells (hESCs), the cells are pluripotent, meaning the cells are undeveloped and can develop into any type of cell. The other type of stem-cell is known as a differentiated “adult” stem-cell, which is already formed into a specific type of cell, but still represents potential for the growth and reproduction of new cells.
In the use of hESCs, the embryos are destroyed due to the extraction of stem-cells, which, by pro-life supporters, is viewed as an unethical destruction of human life akin to murder. The efforts of the opponents of stem-cell research are focused on ending federal funding for stem-cell research. In the words of Steven Aden of the Alliance Defense Fund, an opponent of using hESCs for research,

Bibliography: Rethink Stem Cells? Science Already Has. NICHOLAS WADE, The New York Times, Late Edition, March 10, 2009. Section D, Column 0. Saving Sight, Testing Faith; Stem Cells from Embyos May Finally Cure Patients – Reviving Bitter Debate. Sharon Begley, Newsweek. Vol. 157, No. 22. May 30, 2011. Page 22. Stem Cells for the Masses. Andy Coghlan, New Scientist. No. 834. July 16, 2011. Stem Cells: Nobel Prize for Medicine Retriggers Debate. Marie-Martine Buckens, Europolitics Newspaper, No. 4509. October 17, 2012. The Stem Cell Redemption Victory for Stem-cell Research: Court backs Obama 's Guidelines. Warren Richey, The Christian Science Monitor. July 27, 2011. [ 2 ]. Saving Sight, Testing Faith; Stem Cells from Embyos May Finally Cure Patients – Reviving Bitter Debate. Newsweek. Vol. 157, No. 22. May 30, 2011. Page 22. [ 3 ]. Stem Cells: Nobel Prize for Medicine Retriggers Debate. Europolitics Newspaper, No. 4509. October 17, 2012. [ 4 ]. Saving Sight, Testing Faith; Stem Cells from Embyos May Finally Cure Patients – Reviving Bitter Debate. Newsweek. Vol. 157, No. 22. May 30, 2011. Page 22. [ 5 ]. Victory for Stem-cell Research: Court backs Obama 's Guidelines. The Christian Science Monitor. July 27, 2011. [ 6 ]. Stem Cells for the Masses. New Scientist. No. 834. July 16, 2011. [ 7 ]. Stem Cells for the Masses. New Scientist. No. 834. July 16, 2011. [ 8 ]. Victory for Stem-cell Research: Court backs Obama 's Guidelines. The Christian Science Monitor. July 27, 2011. [ 9 ]. Victory for Stem-cell Research: Court backs Obama 's Guidelines. The Christian Science Monitor. July 27, 2011. [ 10 ]. The Stem Cell Redemption. New Scientist, No. 834. July 16, 2011. [ 11 ]. The Stem Cell Redemption. New Scientist, No. 834. July 16, 2011. [ 12 ]. Rethink Stem Cells? Science Already Has. New York Times, Late Edition, March 10, 2009. Section D, Column 0. [ 13 ]. Saving Sight, Testing Faith; Stem Cells from Embyos May Finally Cure Patients – Reviving Bitter Debate. Newsweek. Vol. 157, No. 22. May 30, 2011. Page 22.