The Controversy of Embryonic Stem Cells

The cure for countless deadly diseases is within reach, but at what cost? 30 years ago, the first breakthrough in embryonic stem cells was made, sparking a heated debate ever since. These special cells have the potential to revolutionize medical treatments by regenerating damaged tissues and curing cell-related diseases. However, their use requires the destruction of embryos, making it a point of contention. When addressing the controversy surrounding embryonic stem cell use, historical, social, political, and economic factors have to be considered to create alternative solutions and understand the implications of these debates for the future of medical research. The key to solving this controversy requires a multifaceted approach; this includes promoting other methods of stem cell research, such as the use of induced pluripotent stem cells and synthetic embryos, alongside stronger efforts to promote embryonic stem cell research in both educational and governmental contexts.

The first breakthrough in the field occurred in 1981 when scientists discovered how to obtain embryonic stem cells from mouse embryos. But it wasn't until 1998 that scientists were able to apply the same method to human embryos, allowing them to grow human stem cells in laboratories. In more recent times, induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs), which do not require the use of embryos, were discovered in 2006 and have not been met with the same controversy. In Finland, the Medical Research Act has regulated stem cell research since 1999. The act allows researchers to work on embryos left over from fertility treatments for up to 14 days following fertilization. The Biomedicum Stem Cell Centre was established in Helsinki in 2005 to further facilitate stem cell research in the country. But these strides have not been taken without protest.

The use of embryonic stem cells has stirred up significant controversy, regarding the question of “when human life begins”. If an embryo is implanted into a woman's uterus during the appropriate hormonal phase, it has the potential to develop into a fetus and become a live-born child. Based on religious beliefs and moral positions, some people believe that “life begins at conception” and that an embryo possesses the same rights as a child already born. They suggest that the removal of the inner cell mass to derive an embryonic stem cell line is tantamount to murder. Others, however, argue that the benefits of deriving these stem cell lines to cure those already born outweigh any moral concerns. This controversy is further stated when considering the value of embryonic stem cells in the economy.

From an economic standpoint, stem cell research holds massive potential for treating diseases that are currently a significant burden on healthcare systems, particularly chronic diseases like Alzheimer's disease and diabetes. Even if stem cell-based therapies cannot fully cure a disease, reducing its severity would yield enormous economic benefits, and would greatly improve the quality and length of life for millions of people. Aside from reduced healthcare costs, new therapies would enable people to return to work. A 2019 report conducted by the Schaeffer Center for Health Policy & Economics at the University of Southern California found that developing stem cell treatments and cures for some of the most common and deadly diseases could result in multi-billion dollar benefits for California alone. Additionally, stem cell research is expected to be a boon in the biotech industry, attracting new companies and creating high-paying jobs. However, an obstacle in this progression is the widely varying laws and regulations worldwide.

Laws regarding embryonic stem cell research differ across the globe. Generally speaking, human cloning and embryo destruction for non-medical purposes are completely prohibited worldwide. Countries such as the United Kingdom, Singapore, and Israel have more lenient regulations and with the government encouraging embryonic stem cell research, leading to greater advancements in these places, since they have more freedom to explore different research approaches and have authorized more studies. However, this has been met with resistance as some groups feel that the research is unfair. Canada and Germany, on the other hand, allow research under stricter conditions, ensuring that the embryos used would otherwise be discarded and only used for projects to develop treatments for serious illnesses. While this may slow down the pace of research, it ensures that it is conducted more fairly and responsibly. Meanwhile, countries like Italy, Poland, and Austria prohibit any use of embryos outside of IVF, which completely eradicates any research opportunities (Watson and Gardner). Finland's laws tend to strike a balance between these laws, allowing research only on embryos created for fertility treatments or specific research purposes under stringent guidelines. A special committee oversees all research to ensure that it is ethical. This approach has one of the best ratios between fairness, adequacy, and effectiveness.

The effectiveness of a solution for embryonic stem cell research depends on its ability to cure diseases, practicality, time frame for development (i.e. should be possible to be implemented in under 10 years), and public acceptance. Unfortunately, there is no perfect solution that ticks all the boxes, but several potential ones exist. One solution is the use of induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs), which can be used to create various cell types for research and clinical applications without destroying embryos, but they are not as effective as embryonic stem cells as there is only a limited number of different cells they can change into. Another solution is using leftover embryos from fertility treatments, as is already done by several countries (e.g. Canada). While it is still controversial and involves destroying embryos that could have become fully-formed humans, it is a practical solution that provides a purpose for embryos that are no longer needed for reproduction. However, this only produces a finite number of embryonic stem cell lines, which only enables a limited amount of research.

Finally, the development of synthetic embryos. In 2022, Scientists at the Weizmann Institute in Israel discovered a way of creating “synthetic embryos” made from mouse stem cells rather than a human egg and sperm (Sample). While this technology is still in its early stages, it could potentially provide a way to conduct research without using human embryos. However, it will likely take several years before they are comparable to actual embryos which still raises the question of the ethics of using animals for research. Moreover, synthetic stem cells are likely to be rejected by the body’s immune system, and so cannot be used in healthcare as of now.

Improved communication and education efforts may also help to increase understanding and support for embryonic stem cell research. However, this likely won’t completely absolve the controversy surrounding the issue. The most feasible solution, although still controversial, is a combination of these options. Focusing embryonic stem cell studies through the use of consensual leftover embryos from fertility treatments, along with a focus on advancing research in induced pluripotent stem cells and synthetic embryos in the future, may be the most practical way forward. Public education efforts can also help to increase the awareness and understanding of these options, and potentially lead to more individuals interested in the field, which could result in the discovery of new solutions. While the controversy of embryonic stem cells will likely remain, finding a way to balance practicality and public acceptance is key to advancing this field responsibly and ethically.

In conclusion, the controversy surrounding embryonic stem cells has been a topic of debate ever since their discovery. While these cells have the potential to revolutionize medical treatments for a variety of diseases, some have raised ethical concerns about their use due to the destruction of embryos required for their extraction. Despite this, it is important to recognize the potential benefits of using embryonic stem cells in the economy and medical research. Researchers must continue to explore the potential of embryonic stem cells, while also engaging in thoughtful and transparent ethical discussions on protecting the sanctity of human life. Governments, scientific organizations, and the public should work together to find solutions for conducting research involving embryonic stem cells ethically and fairly. Furthermore, individuals should educate themselves on the benefits and detriments of using embryonic stem cells and engage in open and honest discussions with educators and healthcare providers. By doing so, we can ensure that this promising field of research is guided by a shared commitment to improving human health as a whole.

---

Author Aarna Kapadia is a fifteen year old writer and journalist, hailing from India. With a history of travelling and an insatiable curiosity for the world, she finds inspiration in cultural diversity, human biology, and literature.

References:

• Aholden. “California: The Leader in Stem Cell Research.” California’s Stem Cell Agency

• Baumann, Jeannie. “State ‘Personhood’ Laws Threaten Embryonic Stem Cell Research.”

• British Heart Foundation. “Breakthroughs in Stem Cell Research.”

• “Centre of Excellence in Stem Cell Metabolism | University of Helsinki.”

• Eguizabal, C., et al. “Two Decades of Embryonic Stem Cells: A Historical Overview.”

• Lo, Bernard, and Lindsay Parham. “Ethical Issues in Stem Cell Research.”

• Matthews, Kirstin RW, and Daniel Moralí. “National Human Embryo and Embryoid Research Policies: A Survey of 22 Top Research-Intensive Countries.”

• Mirabile, Belin. “Fresh Writing.”

• Pizzi, Richard A. “The Science and Politics of Stem Cells.”

• “Regulation of Stem Cell Research in Finland | Eurostemcell.”

• “Regulation of Stem Cell Research in Germany | Eurostemcell.”

• Sample, Ian. “Scientists Create World’s First ‘Synthetic Embryos.’”

• Siegel, Andrew. “Ethics of Stem Cell Research.”

• University of Nebraska. “History of Stem Cell Use | Stem Cells |

• University of Nebraska Medical center. “Pros and Cons

• Watson, Richard Gardner and Tim. “A Patchwork of Laws.”

• Yale Medicine Magazine. “Religion, Politics, Morality, and Stem Cells.”

• Zakrzewski, Wojciech, et al. “Stem Cells: Past, Present, and Future.”