Arguments for Embryonic stem cell research

Proponents of embryonic stem cell research state these reasons:

1) The utilitarianism argument

The benefits of stem cell research outweigh the cost in terms of embryonic "life"

Embryonic stem cells have the capacity to grow indefinitely in a laboratory environment and can differentiate into almost all types of bodily tissue. This makes embryonic stem cells an attractive prospect for cellular therapies to treat wide range of diseases.

The social, economic, and personal costs of the diseases that embryonic stem cells have the potential to treat, are far greater than the costs associated with the destruction of embryos.

2) The human potential vs humanity argument

The value of an embryo should not be placed on par with the value of a child or adult

This argument often goes hand-in-hand with the utilitarian argument, and can be presented in several forms:

Embryos, while of value, are not equivalent to human life while they are still incapable of existing outside the womb (i.e. they only have the potential for life).

Approximately 18% of zygotes do not implant after conception. Thus far more embryos are lost due to chance than are proposed to be used for embryonic stem cell research or treatments.

Blastocysts are a cluster of human cells that have not differentiated into distinct organ tissue, making cells of the inner cell mass no more "human" than a skin cell .

3) The consequentialism argument

The ends (i.e. new treatments and cures) justify the means (i.e. the destruction of a embryos)

This can be seen as a more extreme view of the utilitarian argument.

4) The efficiency argument

If an embryo is going to be destroyed anyway, isn't it more efficient to make practical use of it?

In vitro fertilization (IVF) generates large numbers of unused embryos (i.e. 70,000 in Australia alone). Many of these thousands of IVF embryos are slated for destruction. Using them for scientific research utilizes a resource that would otherwise be wasted.

While the destruction of human embryos is required to establish a stem cell line, no new stem cells have to be destroyed to work with an existing stem cell lines. It would be wasteful not to continue to make use of these cell lines as a resource. .

5) Arguments for the superiority of embryonic stem cells

Embryonic stem cells can be considered far more useful therapeutically than adult stem cells

This is usually presented as a counter-argument to using adult stem cells as an alternative that doesn't involve embryonic destruction.

• Embryonic stems cells make up a significant proportion of a developing embryo, while adult stem cells exist as minor populations within a mature individual. Thus, embryonic stem cells are likely to be easier to isolate and grow ex vivo than adult stem cells.
  
  
• Embryonic stem cells divide more rapidly than adult stem cells, potentially making it easier to generate large numbers of cells for therapeutic means. In contrast, adult stem cell might not divide fast enough to offer immediate treatment.
  
  
• Embryonic stem cells have greater plasticity, allowing them to treat a wider range of diseases.
  
  
  
  
  
• Adult stem cells from the patient's own body might not be effective in treatment of genetic disorders. Allogeneic embryonic stem cell transplantation (i.e. from a healthy donor) may be more practical in these cases than gene therapy of a patient's own cell.
  
  
• DNA abnormalities found in adult stem cells that are caused by toxins and sunlight may make them poorly suited for treatment..
  
  
• Embryonic stem cells have been shown to be effective in treating heart damage in mic

Next: Arguments Against Embryonic Stem Cell Research >>

The content of this page is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Stem Cell Controversy".