The Controversy Surrounding Stem Cell Research

Stem cells are remarkable because they have the ability to develop into numerous different types of cells. Essentially, they are unspecialized cells that can renew themselves through extended periods of cell division and can become specialized cells.

For example, a stem cell can become another cell with a specialized function, such as a skeletal, muscle, or blood cell. According to the National Institutes of Health (http://stemcells.nih.gov), scientists base their work on embryonic and adult stem cells, which have different functions and properties. The benefits of stem cells seem almost limitless because by studying these "undifferentiated" cells, scientists can possibly discover how they become "differentiated." Greater understanding of stem cells could lead to potential cures and therapies for diseases and conditions such as cancer and birth defects. Another potential use is called "cell-based therapies," which is essentially transplanting cells and tissues to replace damaged or destroyed tissue.

Unfortunately, stem cell research is limited because embryonic stem cells can be developed from human embryos that are a few days old or from fetal tissue that are older than eight weeks. This process destroys the embryo, which raises many ethical questions. This brings back the question, "When does life begin?" According to an article by Louis Guenin located on the International Society for Stem Cell Research (www.isscr.org/public/ethics.htm), Guenin suggests that the intentions and overall goal of scientists are to relieve humans from suffering. This is certainly a noble goal, but to do so would require the use of donated embryos. These embryos are classified a human being at a few days by some people. Guenin also mentions that the Roman Catholic Church believes that every embryo should be treated as a person. This categorization implies that obtaining stem cells from an embryo would be murder because the process would destroy the embryo.

An article about Stem-Cell Research by Thomas A. Shannon in Catholic Update (www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac0102.asp) provided Pope John Paul II's opinions on the topic. The pope stated, "Experience is already showing how a tragic coarsening of consciences accompanies the assault on innocent human life in the womb, leading to accommodation and acquiescence in the face of other related evils such as euthanasia, infanticide, and most recently, proposals for the creation or research purposes of human embryos, destined to be destroyed in the process." The pope believes that our consciences have slowly faded and we are already slowly accepting evils such as euthanasia. And now, proposals and desires to conduct stem cell research have come up. There are many religious figures such as Pope John Paul II who reject stem cell research because they view it as an evil.

Compared to Pope John Paul II's more generalized response, Bishop Joseph A. Fiorenza said, "The federal government, for the first time in history, will support research that relies on the destruction of some defenseless human beings for the possible benefit to others. However such a decision is hedged about with qualification, it allows our nation's research enterprise to cultivate disrespect for human life." Again, the moral issue of life and the definitions of life come into the discussion. The beliefs of both Pope John Paul II and Bishop Joseph A. Fiorenza seem to reflect the Donum Vitae, the "Instruction from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which believes that the "human being is to be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception and therefore from that same moment his rights as a person must be recognized."

Similar to the Roman Catholic bishops oppose research because they believe it is "immoral, illegal, and unnecessary," an article in Religion & Ethics Newsweekly (www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week448/perspectives.html) showed that the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod and the Southern Baptist Convention also oppose stem cell research stating that "Human embryos are the tiniest of human beings." A professor from Boston College, Lisa Sowle Cahill explained that pondering certain doctrines "encourages us to put the way we treat life against a bigger horizon and to be cautious of our own activity." Professor Cahill further elaborates that and almost admits that the whole concept of an embryo being a person is more philosophical than religious. "It's based on an idea that as soon as you have an individual human life you have a person." The church believes that the "benefit of the doubt" should be given to the embryo and be "protective of it" despite the lack of definitive knowledge of whether or not it is a person. She even points out that from the standpoint of the Catholic Church, there is no difference between "an embryo developing in a woman's womb and when... it's in a petri dish in a lab." The church believes that it is the same no matter where it is.

While the Catholics seem to have a strong stance against stem cell research, Professor Sondra Wheeler explains the Protestant side, which has more scattered beliefs. One position believes that it is a problem to fertilize the ovum outside the human body to create an embryo because it takes away the germination and transmission of life away from the "union of husband and wife." This perspective is quite similar to the Catholic viewpoint. However, there are those who are willing to tolerate in vitro fertilization to avoid medical complications or problems, but they are still strongly against the destruction of embryos and thus stem cell research. Finally, there are those who are willing to tolerate stem cell research only if it is done within the "fifteen day window of embryonic life before implantation would occur and done only on embryos that cannot be used for the reproductive purposes for which they were created." This, in a way, seems almost pointless. After all, it undermines the whole purpose of stem cell research and it has very little, if any, medical benefits.

An article from Religious & Ethics NewsWeekly showed (www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week448/perspectives.html), however, that not all religious churches oppose stem cell research. Instead, the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations stated that "an isolated fertilized egg does not enjoy the full status of personhood." This is slightly surprising especially for an orthodox church. Furthermore, the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism also approves funding stating that it would be "immoral and unethical" to inhibit "promising medical research." And as the article Stem Cell Politics from Religion & Ethnics NewsWeekly (www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week445/news.html) states, even pro-life Catholics such as former Florida Senator Connie Mack is in favor of stem cell research with the hope that it may one day cure cancer. His justification for support of stem cell research comes from his conclusion that the use and benefit of the stem cells can fit within the "values" that he holds.

The argument against stem cell research revolves around how people regard an embryo. Wheeler said, "We don't trade one human life to save another. You don't kill one patient in order to transplant an organ into another even to save lives, and you wouldn't do it even if you could save two lives that way." According to Religious Tolerance (www.religioustolerance.org/res_stem2.htm), ethical concerns arise when a human embryo must be killed. Dr. James Dobson states, "It is never morally or ethically justified to kill one human being in order to help benefit another." He refers to the destruction of embryos, which are the "tiniest human beings," a violation of the medical ethic of "Do No Harm."

On the other hand, Cahill suggests, many churches of Judaism and Christianity have a "commitment to helping the most vulnerable and the most powerless." Stem cell research can provide health benefits for people of the underdeveloped countries and those inflicted with currently incurable diseases. But another concern of many religious figures is who will invest in the research and reap the profits. "Who is going to have access to it?" Cahill brings up a valid point. The motives behind stem cell research can seem blurred, which prevents religious people from supporting it. After all, there is much power and money to be made from this technology and what is going to stop people from misusing it.

Whether from a religious or scientific viewpoint, there is little debate on the "value of healing and offering remedies for diseases." In fact, only a few things can be considered more important or more valued than healing. One of those valued entities is life itself. And because people have different perceptions based on when life begins due to religious, philosophical, and even moral beliefs, it creates controversy and debates as to which is correct. But it is also important to note that many people have taken high school biology and some have even taken college level biology. However, there are very few people who have truly studied molecular genetics or bioengineering. As a result, their perceptions can also be clouded because they do not truly understand the details of stem cell research. There are many people who oppose stem cell research based on improper understanding of the process. These people are not driven by religious beliefs, but rather their own confused morals.