An Argument for the Use of Adult Stem-Cells

Because of recent scientific developments in research and technology, stem cell research and the use of stem cells for the treatment of disease has become a central issue of debate worldwide. There are two types of stem cells used in science and the medical fields: embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells. I will focus on embryonic stem cells; cells that represent a human life. These are the specific type of stem cells that are the topic of debate. There are two opposing standpoints on the use of embryonic stem cells for research and other medical purposes. One view supports it while the other opposes it. I will argue that embryonic stem cell research is immoral on the ground that it requires the unwarranted destruction of a human life.

Before I present my argument, I will offer a brief explanation of stem cells and the current controversial research on them that is taking place. Stem cells can be thought of as the building blocks of life. They are cells that have yet to be genetically "programmed." In other words, their purpose has not yet been assigned. Researchers believe stem cells hold amazing potential for developing treatments and cures for diseases and illnesses that have plagued humankind for generations. With all the modern research on genetics, scientists can "program" stem cells for whatever purpose they are needed in the human body. As an example, they can be used to generate new brain cells for someone with a brain illness. Also, "the human life span could be greatly extended due to replenishment of tissues in aging organs. We may even have the ability one day to grow our own organs for transplantation from our own stem cells…" (Stem Cell Research Foundation)

Embryonic stem cells come from a human embryo. Because of their cellular makeup, they are believed to be more versatile than adult stem cells. Scientists believe embryonic stem cells to hold the most promise for medical advancement. The use of embryonic stem cells for research and medical purposes requires that the human embryo from which the cells are obtained be destroyed. Adult stem cells come from the blood, skin, bones, and organs of adult human beings. While a number of scientists believe adult stem cells may not be as useful as embryonic stem cells, obtaining them does not require the loss of human life.

While I acknowledge that embryonic stem cells seem to hold medical promise, a critical moral issue is at hand. An embryonic stem cell represents a human life. I support this assumption with the argument that human life begins at conception. No argument can deny that when sperm meets egg, conception occurs and growth begins. There can be no clearer evidence of life than actual growth. And indeed, there will be no other life to spring from a human egg than human life. Using embryonic stem cells for research purposes requires that the embryo they were obtained from be destroyed. An embryo is a human life. Destruction of a human life for scientific research is immoral.

Because of the medical possibilities that embryonic stem cells are believed to have, many have formulated arguments supporting embryonic stem cell research. The Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research takes the position that, "The therapeutic research that involves the cloning of microscopically small human cells and genes does not lead to human birth: rather, it is integral to the production of more effective diagnostic procedures and breakthrough medicines to treat many diseases." (Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research 2004) The wording there is tricky. Indeed, the research does not lead to human birth. But the Coalition's statement cannot deny the fact that a human life has been manipulated and destroyed. Instead, the research is explained away with big words and an appeal to the advancement of medicine.

Other supporters of embryonic stem cell research point to the fact that fertility clinics are already discarding embryos daily. They argue we should seize these discarded lives and use them for the greater good. The perspective here is that at least then, the embryos served a purpose. While this is true, and utilitarian thinkers would support it wholeheartedly I'm sure, it classifies human life as a means to an end. I take the Kantian perspective that a human life has more inherent value and the issue at hand is one of principle-doing what is right simply because it is right.

Another claim supporting the use of embryonic stem cells is, "Scientists think that embryonic stem cells have a much greater utility and potential than the adult stem cells." (Stem Cell Research Foundation) While scientists may believe this, the fact of the matter is, "there are no clinical trials anywhere in the world using embryonic stem cells in humans. At the same time, adult stem cells are being used in treatment therapies for more than 70 diseases, including breast cancer, leukemia and sickle cell anemia." (Earll 2003) Supporters of embryonic stem cell research postulate that embryonic stem cells hold more promise than adult stem cells. Yet, adult stem cells are already in medical use and have a proven track record.
Adult stem cells have already been used to successfully treat diabetes, heart disease, sickle cell anemia, leukemia, and multiple sclerosis to name just a few. "There is no scientific evidence to suggest that embryonic stem cell research has more potential to lead to viable treatments for various diseases than research with non-embryonic stem cells." (Kokoski 2004) It simply doesn't make sense to ignore that we are already experiencing tremendous medical breakthroughs with the use of adult stem cells. Why continue spending money and resources on such controversial things as embryonic stem cell research when a much less controversial method (adult stem cell research and use) is proving useful and effective?

While I realize it is impossible to cover all perspectives on such a current issue as embryonic stem cell research, I do believe I have offered a solid argument in opposition of this controversial practice. Few objections to this argument deny its reasonableness. Rather, they simply sidestep around the issue and highlight the benefits and future potential of embryonic stem cell research. Often, fancy scientific language is used to cover up the fact that a human life even enters the equation. The truth of the matter remains, though. The question of the morality of stem cell research is an issue of principle. I maintain that it is wrong to destroy a human life in the pursuit of scientific advancement. Regardless of any attempts at justification, it is unacceptable.