Stem cells are the latest controversial topic in the forefront biological research. No other ongoing areas of research have been the focus of Presidential and Congressional scrutiny, ethical debates and numerous other national media. This lengthy focus on this research is attributed to their amazing but controversial potential of a specific type of stem cell, the embryonic stem cells. The primary issue that is being dealt with is the issue over Federal funding for research using embryonic stem cells; the very nature of these cells cause strong opinions and bring up serious ethical concerns.

To produce an opinion on this subject requires a background on the ongoing research of the stem cells. In particular, ideas of the various types of stem cells and the potential and current possible uses of these cells are necessary. Also, before coming to any form of conclusions, it is important to observe the various positions and developments of the debate on the stem cells. By understanding the nature and the potential of the stem cells, it is possible to understand why embryonic stem cell research should continue to be Federally Funded.

Stem cells are valued for its “plur

Embryonic stem cells are fairly new to the research scene. Though human embryonic stem cells were first isolated in 1997, little research with human cells where carried out due to federal restrictions on the use of embryonic tissues for research at the time. The Congressional Appropriations Committee placed these restrictions in the laws for funding for the National Institute of Health. (Marshal, 465) Later, the National Institute of Health announced that they would not support public funding for the extraction of human embryos. It is important to note that the in addition to the previous policy, they state that, once the cells from the embryos are extracted, they are no longer considered organisms and the study is eligible for funding. (NIH) To counter the progress of public funding, in 1999, the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity published a “Christian Analysis” of embryonic stem cell use. “ We must not sacrifice one class of human beings (the embryo) to benefit another (those suffering from serious illnesses)” (Bevington) Later that year, over 100 anti-abortionist release a statement “arguing the research on embryonic stem cell is scientifically unnecessary and urging congress to fund alternatives.” (Wandman 96) implying that adult stem cells being sufficient for study, a comment known now to be incorrect. Signers included former surgeon general C. Everett Coop and former FDA commissioner Frank Young. In an aggressive anti-research statement, Young compares the development of cell and tissue therapies from embryonic stem cells to the use of human skin to make saddles by the Nazi Germany.

Embryonic stem cell research has been controversial due to the reason that these cells come from human embryos or fetal tissue. Embryonic stem cells can be harvested by number of methods. The first method, which is primarily used is from embryos created by invitro-fertilization as a method of overcoming infertility that are later donated by couples that no longer had plans to use the embryos. This method collects embryonic stem cells. The second method, which is also currently employed, at a lesser frequency, is the collection of human fetal tissue following an elective abortion. By this method, embryonic germ cel

Some topics in this essay:
Institutions Tenebaum, Presidential Congressional, Institute Health, Wade Amongst, Human Dignity, Funded Stem, stem cells, NIH President, Everett Coop, embryonic stem, stem cell, embryonic stem cells, Policy Stem, embryonic stem cell, Germany Regardless, stem cell research, public funding, cell research, embryos stem, institute health, ongoing research, embryos stem cells, cells human, national institute, national institute health,