The controversy over the research, usage and application of stem cell therapies has generated significant global attention. Often it becomes difficult to see the lines between scientific reasoning, political activism and the ethics of this developing biotechnology. 

Resistance to scientific development is nothing new: Galileo, Darwin, Copernicus and countless others have faced criticism both legitimate and spurious depending on the political and religious climate of their day. Entwined in the arguments are science, religious,  political and business interests - interests which often have directly competing mandates and may not represent all information factually.

Ethics against Stem Cell Research

Many issues concerning the research and application of medical therapies based on stem cell techniques have been raised - it would be impossible to address all of these issues (pro and con) here. A few example  concerns are briefly summarized below:

1. Source - the use of fetal stem cells derived from aborted fetuses (or other fetal tissues, living or non-living) faces significant resistance from many groups on religious and ethical grounds. Early stem cell work employed the destruction of an exceptionally early, undifferentiated fetus - thus inflaming the argument of "when does life begin". The counter to this viewpoint is the fact that researchers use fetal materials which were to be destroyed, not the destruction of embryos with the potential of a human life before them.
   In August 2005, scientists at Harvard University revealed a new discovery which integrates genetically "blank" embryonic stem cells with adult epidermal cells (as opposed to employing fertilized embryos). This method can create all-purpose, viable stem cells  to treat diseases and disabilities without involving  the death of a living fetus.  
2. Cloning - the issue of cloning human beings as a source of "spare parts" conjures up images from many "B" science fiction stories. Described as the "instrumentalization of human beings", this scenario is certainly ambitious if not far-fetched. The technology to create cloned human beings may not be far off but the support of the public would be exceptionally variable at best.
3. Playing "God" - many individuals take issue with scientists "playing God" by participating in areas that are currently beyond human control. "Mankind has no right to..." is a viewpoint that has been expressed throughout history by many diverse groups.

Ethics for Stem Cell Research

Some of the core concerns include:

1. Capability - the potential to relieve the suffering of so many individuals strikes home to the core reasons many practitioners took up medicine in the first place: to help ease the suffering. This sentiment cannot be lightly dismissed.
2. New Therapies - the potential of new therapies for disorders such as Multiple Sclerosis, Parkinson's, Diabetes, etc., offers hope to many who suffer through these conditions
3. Ethics - the ability to use stem cells to model pharmaceutical therapies and strategies may further alleviate the need for animal-based testing and modeling.

So what is the current public view of embryonic stem cell research? A Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates Oct. 26-27, 2006 (1,002 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3) considered the question:

"Do you favor or oppose using federal tax dollars to fund medical research using stem cells obtained from human embryos?"

	Favor	Oppose	Unsure
	%	%	%
ALL adults	50	37	13
Republicans	34	54	12
Democrats	62	27	11
Independents	54	34	12

An  ABC News Poll (2006) also examined American viewpoints on the issue:

Stem Cell Research

	Support	Oppose
Religion:
Evangelical white Protestants	50%	40
White Catholics	54	35
Non-evangelical white Protestants	70	18
Ideology:
Conservatives	44%	44
Moderates	63	26
Liberals	76	14
Politics:
Republicans	49%	37
Independents	62	26
Democrats	65	27
Abortion:
Legal	76%	15
Illegal	39	50
Race:
Whites	60%	29
Blacks	48	44

Differing Opinions and Lobbying

Science has enjoyed both political support and funding in numerous areas over the past century - it is uncommon for politics to subdue scientific development in most circumstances. When there is a disagreement, typically those disagreeing with contemporary science do not attempt to repudiate the scientific facts, but instead chose to sway public opinion and thereby gain the outcomes they seek.  The science community, on the other hand, prefers to present it's case as a technical viewpoint where they possess a significant advantage.

The manipulation of public opinion in business, politics (and even science) has existed as long as there has been any significant societies. Currently these battles are played out in the media, often with little discernment between fact and fiction.

The primary goal of either side is to control the agenda, either at the scientific funding and administrative level (typically won by science) or at the political lobby level (loudest voice is often successful).

 

A second target is to characterize the issue in such a way that supports one or other of the arguments, effectively leading the public to largely inescapable conclusions. Science prefers to characterize the technical elements of a controversy, while those outside the scientific realm often prefer to draw upon root emotional issues that the general public will relate to.

 

 

In March 2009 President Obama overturned G.W. Bush's moratorium on funding for stem cell research.

 

"In these matters the only certainty is that nothing is certain."

Pliny the Elder (23 AD - 79 AD)