Stem Cells: Its not as Easy as It Seems

When does life begin? This is an age-old question that has been studied for centuries and everyone seems to have an opinion. For the last several decade stem cell research has been an exciting and innovative way of searching for a cure to diseases and ways to improve the quality of living for many people. And this question of where life begins is at the heart of this research.

Stem cells are cells that can develop into any type of cell in the human body. Because these cells can develop into any cell they have the potential to repair damaged tissue and potentially cure several diseases. Some diseases that scientists hope they will be able to cure are diseases caused by central nervous system damage, diabetes, and vision problems. There are several different kinds of stem cells, but they can be divided into three major categories, which are adult stem cells, induced pluripotent stem cells, and embryonic stem cells. The University of Nebraska’s Medical Center defines Adult stem cells as cells that are found in the adult human body and are found in different tissues. They can only turn into one type of cell that is specific to the organ they came from. Induced pluripotent stem cells are created in a lab and are a mix between adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells. Human embryonic stem cells are undifferentiated which means they haven’t formed into any specialized cells yet like nerve cells. These cells are found in embryos that are 3-5 days old and they can transform into any type of cell in the human body. Unfortunately, the embryo is destroyed in this process.

Research has been conducted on all three types of stem cells and the reoccurring debate is centered around embryonic stem cells: their effectiveness and the ethical and moral standing on experimenting on embryos. Although there is a lot of potential for the use of embryonic stem cells it is surrounded by ethical and moral controversy that parallels the debate on abortion. At the heart of this controversy is the age-old question of when does life begin. Should embryos be allowed to be destroyed in an attempt to provide a cure for diseases that afflict millions of people or, should the embryo be protected as the beginning of a life form? If science is not respecting where life comes does it begin to lose the focus that it has on saving lives and improving the quality of life? This question is at the heart of stem cell research that has been discussed by scientists across the world. This essay will focus on embryonic stem cells and three people’s views and research surrounding them. A few areas covered by the authors are alternative options for embryonic stem cell research and religious views that surround this study.

Dr. Martin Bednar makes an argument in his article “Endogenous Tissue Regeneration and Restoration, Maximizing Our Human Potential: An Ethical Alternative to Human Embryonic Stem Cells” to back away from the study of embryonic stem cells and focus more on Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells. Conversely, Che Anuar Che Mohamad in his article “Stem Cell Research: Therapeutic Potentials and Ethical Issues from Islamic Perspective” focuses on his opinion and research he has found to convey the message that embryonic stem cells are the most promising type of stem cell that has been found. In the third article by Ph.D. student Marinia Petrisor titled “Overview of Embryonic Stem Cell Research,” she uses scientific facts to back up her opinion that embryonic stem cells are the most promising type of stem cell. These three articles are similar in the way that they both discuss the same topics related to stem cell research however, their views on these topics are opposing.

Both articles by Dr. Martin Bednar and Che Anuar Che Mohamad discuss the use of induced pluripotent stem cells. Martin Bednar discusses some statistics from previous clinical trials. He compared the number of clinical trials that used stem cells to the number of trials that used another form of treatment. He showed that clinical trials involving stem cells have been increasing over the years but the ones that have been using embryonic stem cells have shown a lack of results. Trials using embryonic stem cells have been used in an attempt to treat strokes, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), and central nervous system damage. However, all clinical trials focus on restoring damage done to the central nervous system. By discussing this data Bednar argues that the use of pluripotent stem cells is a more promising alternative to embryonic stem cells. He states, “Although infrequently discussed, it is medical fact that adult stem cells have cured dozens of diseases while no cure has ever been produced as a result of research using embryonic stem cells.” This statement is backed up by the evidence of the clinical trials that he provided.

Che Anuar Che Mohamad argues that pluripotent stem cells are not a promising replacement for embryonic stem cells. He expresses this by stating a few of the setbacks of using pluripotent stem cells such as how they are produced and their limitations in reproducing the same results. It is interesting to see how the topic of pluripotent stem cells was used as a supporting factor in both of their arguments although they had opposing views. It appears that one author focused on the potential benefits of this type of cell and the other focused more on comparing them to embryonic stem cells and their setbacks. Both articles appear to have an all-or-nothing view on the use of embryonic stem cells.

Another one of the main focuses in all three articles is religion or faith. They all focus on discussing the morals of experimenting on an embryo. In Mohamad's article, he discusses what Islam, Judaism, and Christianity say about when life begins to support his argument that embryonic stem cells should be studied. He observes that the views of these three religions can be divided into two categories that create the two opposing sides of this debate. Mohamad appears to go straight to the source when identifying the views of these religions by looking into their source of scripture and talking with leaders of the different faiths. In his article, he quotes scriptures from these religions. He concludes that in Judaism, it is acceptable to perform research on embryos because they view life as beginning at 40 days after conception and so it is not considered a living being until 40 days. In Islam, he observes that their view is that life does not being until around 120 days after conception. However, they believe that the embryo must be respected, and careful consideration must be made if research is to be conducted. He discusses the Christian view that life begins at the time of fertilization and that in this faith it is unacceptable to conduct research on an embryo. By looking at the views of these religions side by side it is easy to see the different sides of this debate and where they stem from. It is also surprising to see how much differentiation there is in the opinion of when they view life as the beginning.

In Bednar, he makes a reference to religion’s place in science by stating, “Science becomes a threat to mankind when it sets no value on human life or fails to recognize its existence.” He continues by saying “For science to function without moral oversight would result in nothing less than the implosion of that society.” He continues to make an argument that science and faith are complimentary of each other and when used together it acts as a “moral compass”. Both authors acknowledge the importance of using faith alongside science to help determine what is morally right when conducting research.

Contrastingly, in Marina Petrisor’s article, she focuses mainly on the scientific facts surrounding stem cells to argue for the study of embryonic stem cells. All three articles acknowledge the need for the furthering of science and technology to provide a cure for diseases. However, they go about this objective in different ways. Marina Petrisor discusses the moral status of the embryo in society and states “…at four to five days from fertilization (when embryonic stem cells are extracted for research) the embryo is in a state of the blastocyst and has no differentiated cells. Also, at this moment, the embryo has no nervous system and so, should not be considered a human being and either should not be treated by default as a person.” She bases her article on this statement and uses it to argue for the extenuation of embryonic stem cell research. Although all three articles have different opinions on embryonic stem cell research, they are all focused on the same thing and that is finding cures to diseases.

Stem cell research has a lot of potentials to find cures for several diseases’, especially neurodegenerative diseases. There are several types of stem cells that have been discovered and several of them have already been found to cure certain diseases. Although the best outcome would be to cure all diseases it is better to have cured some or at least are heading in that direction than to have not cured any at all. It seems that a few of the stances on stem cell research is all or nothing. Because of the moral and ethical debates that surround science, it is important to have your own moral compass as Bednar explained to determine what is right and what is wrong. Induced pluripotent stem cells seem like a viable option to embryonic stem cell research and should be explored further. Embryos are at the beginning of the process of creating life. This is a very sensitive subject. Embryos must be treated with extreme care and respect if they must be studied. However, other options should be explored first.

Works Cited

1. Bednar, Martin M. “Endogenous Tissue Regeneration and Restoration, Maximizing Our Human Potential: An Ethical Alternative to Human Embryonic Stem Cells.” Issues in Law & Medicine, vol 31, no.2, Fall 2016, pp 217-220 EBSCOhost, Accessed 23, Feb 2020
2. Mohamad, Che Anuar, Che, and Abdurezak Abdullahi Hashi. “Stem Cell Research: Therapeutic Potentials and Ethical Issues from Islamic Perspective.” International Medical Journal Malaysia, vol 17, Apr 2019, pp 65-69 EBSCOhost, Accessed 23, Feb 2020
3. Petrisor, Ticmeanu, Marina. “Overview of Embryonic Stem Cell Research.” Postmodern Openings vol.7, no. 2, Dec 2016, pp59-77 EBSCOhost, doi:10.18662/po/2016.0702.05 Accessed 23, Feb 2020
4. “Types of Stem Cells” University of Nebraska Medical Center, www.unmc.edu/stemcells/educational-resources/types.html, Accessed 26, Feb 2020
5. Yamanaka, Takahashi K,. “'Induction of pluripotent stem cells from mouse embryonic and adult fibroblast cultures by defined factors'.” en.wikipedia.org. Cell, 10 Aug. 2006. Web. 7 Mar. 2020.