team e section j research paper - final - copy

Running header STEM CELL TRANSPLANTS 1

Stem Cell Transplants

Team E

Devry University

By: Team E

Table of Contents


Stem Cell Transplants...............................................................................................................................3

I. Description of stem cell research......................................................................................................3

II. The historical development of stem cell research........................................................................6

III. Economic questions and considerations.....................................................................................12

IV. Political and legal influences.......................................................................................................19

V. Psychological considerations and sociological effects....................................................................25

VI. The technology in its cultural context, media influence............................................................33

VII. Implications of the environment.................................................................................................40

The Animal Testing Debate...................................................................................................................40

Animal Cloning for Food Products........................................................................................................41

Effects of Chemicals and Toxins...........................................................................................................42

Stem Cells and Plants............................................................................................................................44

VIII. Moral and ethical implications...............................................................................................45

IX. Conclusion....................................................................................................................................55

Resources.................................................................................................................................................57


Stem Cell Transplants

Even though stem cell research is a new emerging technology, it has already had a major

impact on the world. From the common person to the million dollar celebrity, stem cell research

has touched many lives. Even if it has not made a direct impact in someone’s life, many people

have at least heard or read of its influence on someone else. Most people also have already

formed an opinion as to where they stand on the controversial issue of stem cell research and

stem cell treatments.

I. Description of stem cell research

New treatment possibilities with revolutionary ideas about those treatments are expected

soon from researchers. The key to these promises of revolutionary new treatments is the human

stem cell. With this key, biological mysteries that have been longstanding could be solved.

Diseases could be eliminated and human suffering could end.

With a promise of the ability to grow all of our body's tissues through a differentiation

process, cells that do not yet have a developed specific function can develop into needed cells for

our bodies to heal themselves from disease or injuries. Imagine a world without disease and

without debilitating injuries. We could all live longer and healthier lives with this emerging

technology.

Embryonic stem cells are defined as undifferentiated cells, ones that can grow into any

type of cell that it is introduced to and they are showing promises in treatments for many

diseases such as cancer, spinal cord injuries, heart disease, Parkinson's disease and even diabetes.

Applications of stem cell research to repair tissues that have been damaged have created a new


specialty in medicine called regenerative medicine. Regenerative medicine is a biomedical

approach to clinical therapies that involve the use of stem cells.

Red and white blood cells, as well as platelets are produced from stem cells. When bone

marrow stem cells are destroyed to treat diseases or are not functioning well they need replaced

with new stem cells. A procedure to harvest healthy donor stem cells from blood or bone

marrow is injected into the veins of the recipient. The injected cells travel in your blood to reach

the bone cavities. These new cells aren't expected to function properly for about a month. If the

bone marrow cells start producing healthy red and white blood cells and platelets the transplant

is considered successful.

There are many reasons why this procedure is done. When the stem cells in bone marrow

are deficient or simply not functioning because of blood disorders, cancers, severe anemia,

cancer treatments, infections or immunodeficiency disorders to name a few, new stem cells may

be needed to help the body to regenerate tissue become healthy again.

As with any procedure there are possible complications which the doctor should review

with the patient. It is important for the patient to take the time to really understand everything

about the procedure chosen, including any risks, benefits and of course any possible

complications that go along with the planned treatment or therapy. The complications are

different for the recipient and for the donor. All risks and possible complications should be

thoroughly discussed with the doctor before agreeing to a transplant as a donor or as a recipient.

Recipient and donors are first checked for tissue compatibility. There are markers, called

HLS types, which must match if there is any hope for a successful stem cell transplant. A donor

can expect to be tested to check for diseases. The doctors need to make sure that the donor is

healthy enough for the procedure and that compatibility is present before a transplant is


considered using the donor – recipient combination presented. Donors can be related or they can

be strangers to the recipient. The most important factor is that there is a tissue match before the

transplant can take place. Without this vital step in the screening process not only is the

transplant success jeopardized but also the health of the donor and recipient.

Recipients can expect to be conditioned to get rid of any diseased cells in the body and

clear out the cavities of the bone marrow before a transplant so that the new bone marrow has a

good place to grow. With this procedure the recipient does not need anesthesia but the donor is

given a general anesthesia while a needle and syringe are used in the donors’ hip to harvest about

1-2 quarts of bone marrow. This process can be very painful for the donor while the recipient

does not experience pain with this part of the treatment.

Cells can also be harvested from multiple blood donations. The blood is spun so that the

stem cells are concentrated for harvesting and that any other blood cells can be returned to the

donor. This lessens the blood loss for the donor. If this process is not followed it is possible that

the donor will lose too much blood and then the procedure is no longer safe for the donor. The

donated stem cells need to go through an additional filtering process prior to be administered to

the recipient for it to be totally safe and successful.

There is quite a controversy with human embryonic stem cell research. Because a human

embryo as young as five days old contains eight-celled blastocysts that must be disassembled to

obtain the inner cell mass. The controversy comes in because these cells, although not yet

recognizable as a human fetus, has a potential of developing and growing into a baby. This is

what causes the most controversy with stem cell research and using human embryos.

Adult stems cells are also able to regenerate and have many of the properties found in

embryonic stem cells. They are not exactly as flexible as the embryonic stem cells but they are


close enough that they are using them as another alternative to that of embryonic stem cells.

There is not as much controversy when adult stem cells are used. The tradeoff is that they are

not exactly identical in their uses. Other alternative stem cell sources are also being developed.

II. The historical development of stem cell research

In the US on July 12, 1974, the 93rd Congress, until guidelines were developed by the

National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral

Research which was established by the National Research Act that was within the Department of

Health, Education, and Welfare, placed a ban on federal funding of fetal tissue research. They

wanted policy defined that would protect human subjects during experiments, both medical and

scientific.

Guidelines for federal funding for fetal and fetal tissue research originating from

abortions led to the establishment of the Ethics Advisory Board in 1975. The guidelines that

were developed only pertained to the tissues that originated from abortions and not from any

other source. The Ethics Advisory Board was not in existence very long. The charter for the

Ethics Advisory Board was not renewed by President Reagan in 1980. This meant that since the

advisory board was disbanded there was an automatic de facto moratorium which halted all

federal funding of human embryo research. All investigations that had been recommended by

the Ethics Advisory Board or were in process by the Ethics Advisory Board to look into the

safety of in vitro fertilizations that had been developed using human embryos less than 14 days

old were halted with the de facto moratorium.

With an overwhelming 18-3 vote, approval was received by the Human Fetal Tissue

Transplantation Research Panel in 1988. The Department of Health and Human Services


accepted arguments from dissenters that such research would certainly lead to increased

abortions, so they extended the moratorium on embryo research even with a majority vote by the

Human Fetal Tissue Transplantation Research Panel.

The moratorium was attempted to be overridden by congress in 1990 but it was vetoed by

President George H. W. Bush. Congress had tried to get federal funding for stem cell research

but even during his campaign George H. W. Bush vowed to veto any attempts for federal

funding for human embryo stem cell research because of his strong religious beliefs.

By way of an executive order, the embryo research moratorium was lifted by President

Bill Clinton in 1993. . In 1994 President Clinton reversed his executive order because he had

received thousands of letters urging him to do so. Jay Dickey a Republican from Arizona and

Roger Wicker a Republican from Michigan jointly sponsored the Dickey-Wicker Amendment in

1995. The amendment prohibited federal funds for the creation or research of human embryos

unless it matched those that were allowed for research using in utero fetuses.

John D. Gearhart of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and James A

Thomson of the University of Wisconsin led two research teams in November of 1998. Both of

these teams isolated the human stem cells which were independently announced and their

findings were recognized as great ethical as well as medical importance. Soon after this

discovery federal funding debates during US Senate hearings followed.

Laboratories reproduce stem cells for research once they have been isolated from an

embryo. Scientists would use each stem cell line by creating unique qualities that are present

that may be suited for the treatment of certain diseases. This research was showing even greater

potential for the possibility of treating diseases and injuries.


By the summer of 2000 pro-life activists objected to the position in favor of embryonic

stem cell research by both the American Heart Association and the US National Institutes of

Health (NIH). At this time President Bill Clinton allowed federal funding but made stipulations

on researchers that only embryos from fertility clinics that were frozen and leftover could be

used. There was no allowance for donors to avoid any type of commercial trading of embryos.

When George W. Bush became president the policy on federal funding of stem cell

research once again changed. Bush was openly opposed to any stem cell research because it

destroyed human embryos. The decision to discontinue funding was met with applause by some

groups and pleas to continue from others. The people are certainly divided on this issue when it

comes to using human embryos.

There are many viewpoints on stem cell research. The different denominations of

churches are split on the issue. The beliefs of the various church denominations leaves a clear

split in what religions support. In some churches there are disparities within the same church.

Although federal funding had been discontinued in January 2001, in the United States it was still

legal if the research was funded privately. Some thought that since scientists that were based in

universities could not afford to continue to do large amounts of research due to the lack of

federal funds that most new discoveries would elude American laboratories and be made by

laboratories overseas.

The federal funding ban was amended in 2001 by President Bush. Cure of diseases was

cited as a potential for stem cell research. Sixty existing cell lines could once again obtain

federal funding. Although the stipulations remained that new cell lines could not be obtained by

using living embryos or future embryos. Again, controversy was apparent with President Bush's

compromise.


Most controversy with stem cell research centers on the destruction of human embryos,

so in 2001 alternatives to the sources of stem cells were isolated. The isolation started with fat

tissue or adipose tissue and has led to the discovery that many of the adult organs contain adult

stem cells. Adult stem cells can also be found in umbilical cord blood. With these discoveries

there is promise for use of these cells in hearts, brains and possibly by able to produce insulin.

There is promise for adult stem cells to be used in many diseased areas of the body to help

regenerate cells and help heal.

Many more embryos are created than are needed with in vitro fertilization treatments.

Since very few of the embryos created are implanted there are vast numbers of embryos that

remain. If not used, when their maturity reaches five days, any embryos that remain are then

frozen. They can be reused if they survive the freezing process. If not used for research, the

unused embryos are usually are discarded. It should be noted that the destruction of embryos for

the in vitro process has little debate even though effective stem cell research would not use as

many as destroyed in this process.

As of 2003, surplus embryos in fertility clinics are allowed sources for embryonic stem

cell research in Greece, the Netherlands, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and Finland. Stem cell

research is also permitted in most of the Asian countries. Spain, Austria, Denmark, France, and

Ireland maintain that stem cell research is illegal. Although stem cell research remains

controversial in Muslim countries, there are few laws concerning it. A growing concern remains

with medical professionals about bans on embryonic stem cell research losing their top

researchers to other institutions that are funded well in countries without bans on the research.

January 2004 the "Monitoring Stem Cell Research" was published by the President's

Council on bioethics. The Council was chaired by Leon Kass and the report was to convey the


social and moral importance demonstrating that different backgrounds, policy preferences and

ethical beliefs can together, reason about stem cell research.

With all of the controversy and administration changes the laws and rules for stem cell

research and federal funding keep changing. The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005

was passed by the US Senate in July of 2006. This Enhancement Act was significant because it

made funding by the US government less restrictive. As an alternative to disposal of frozen

embryos in fertility clinics the stem cells could now be used for research. But once again this

changed by President Bush when he vetoed the Stem Cell Enhancement Act of 2005 because he

continued to have moral objections to human embryos being destroyed for any reason. This

again left existing cell lines being able to use federal funding and private funding remains legal

in the US.

The controversy has gone as far as having Catholic embryo donors and Catholic stem cell

researchers being threatened in June of 2006 with excommunication. Beliefs around the world

for stem cell research and against stem cell research run strong. Religious groups play a big part

in the controversies with what they believe to be ethical or moral.

April 30, 2007 new amendments for guidelines on Human Embryonic Stem cell research

were released by the National Academies. By June 20, 2007 another executive order that called

for work on alternate pluripotent stem cells came from President Bush. A request to rename the

Human Embryonic Stem Cell Registry to the Human Pluripotent Stem Cell Registry were

included in President Bush’s' executive order.

Kyoto Universities Shinya Yamanaka and the University of Wisconsin-Madison's James

Thomson independently published papers on the derived induced pluripotent stem cells. With the

use of four genes that carried viruses, the pluripotent stem cells found within the skin cell


properties proved to be very much like those of embryonic stem cells. This find was important

to the future of stem cell research and its use of embryonic stem cells. The pluripotent stem cells

were closer to that of the embryonic stem cells than adult stem cells.

In May of 2008 a report was published by a bioethicist, Robert Streiffer, at the University

of Wisconsin-Madison. He claimed only 16 of the 21 lines of stem cells that were eligible for

federal funding were ethically derived and viable. September 5, 2008 the National Academies

released a new amendment with guidelines for Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research. Clinical

Translations of Stem Cells had new guidelines released on December 3, 2008 by the

International Society for Stem Cell Research.

President Obama was sworn in on January 20, 2008 as the 44th president of the US. He

had promised to change human embryonic stem cell research restrictions currently in place. By

March of 2009 there were 50,000 responses that had been received by the NIH on the

committees proposed guidelines. It is clear that there a large numbers of people and

organizations support the use of stem cell research. The moral and ethical questions and beliefs

are preventing everyone from working together for a common goal with stem cell research.

Some countries are ahead of others with this research because of the allowance or the bans on

this type of research. This administration change in the US, once again changed the rules for

stem cell research. President Obama, in May of 2009, reversed the President Bush

administration restriction on federal funding on only twenty-one stem cell lines. New stem cell

lines are still banned from using federal funds. Included in federal funds are any new lines that

were developed without federal funds. If private funds created, the new lines there would not be

restrictions on using federal funds to research those new lines.


Federal approval of research drives what most universities in the US will conduct

research on. Federal sanctioning, regardless of acceptance of funding, is vital to stem cell

research. Private fund sponsored research without government approval creates hostile

environments for investment companies and clouds approval of any treatments discovered in the

US. The United States will be surpassed on this potentially breakthrough technology without

approvals for this vital research to be conducted.

To help eliminate the major reason for the controversy with human stem cell research,

scientists continue to work on ways to develop stem cells without using the eggs that they have

to destroy. This would then eliminate the major concern on the debate of stem cell research.

This would hopefully start changing the opinions of those opposed to the research and allow the

US to gracefully change its stance on the acceptance and funding of stem cell research so that we

stop losing our top researchers to other countries with more accepting policies on human stem

cell research.

III.Economic questions and considerations

The issue of stem cell research was introduced in November of 1998 when researchers

first reported successfully isolating human embryonic stem cells. This was a breakthrough for

the treatment of cancer and other conditions such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s disease.

However this research comes with much debate, which raises questions about the economic,

social, legal, and ethical factors influencing funding of stem cell research, the ethics of using

embryonic cells for biomedical research, as well as concerns around cloning. The ethical and

moral issues have a direct impact on the economics of stem cell research. Both economic and

culture interests are important in the policy progress in this research. Both legal and political


issues regarding this science have been discussed and attempted to be settled over the past

decade. According to the American Journal of Law and Medicine (2005) Politics also play a role,

in that the policy usually reflects the objective of presidential administration in office. While

religious values, financial gain and moral dilemmas have all contributed to debate around this

subject, scientific concerns have been a factor as well. Ethical concerns of using embryonic stem

cells and cloning abilities have also impacted both public and political views of this research,

which impacts the decisions around funding. It is a challenge to convince investors to contribute

to something that they don’t believe in, or have moral issues with.

In August 2001, President Bush banned all forms of Federal funding for embryonic cell

research with exception of previous studies using created cell lines. (The National Institute of

Health, 2001) Between 2001 and 2008 funding was limited for stem cell research. Yet seven

states found ways to pay for embryonic stem cell research without relying on federal funds. In

2006 New Jersey was the first state to allow taxpayer money for stem cell research. Government

funding for stem cell research has been and still a controversial topic. However due to the

possibility of economic growth and job creation as well as the promising results of stem cell

therapy, pressure has been put on lawmakers and politicians to reconsider funding. Moving

forward, this initiative is expected to remain at the top of several state legislative agendas,

according to Fox News, “On April 29, 2011, a decision was reached that overturned a judge's

order from 2010 giving the White House a major victory that opposed the use of federal funds

for stem cell research. An appeals court ruled that the Obama administration is allowed to use

taxpayer money for stem cell research deciding that opponents of federally funded stem cell

research will not be able to stop it.

Customized treatments are likely to be very expensive, but according to the text Stem Cell Now,


“Individual treatments are feasible and that the cost of therapy will come down and that once

there is more competition. In a situation where stem cell therapy can cure a specific disease, then all other

costs of caring for that disease go away. Therefore the price of stem cells therapy would make up for by

future medical savings.” Scott, C (2006). Costs are calculated by including the direct medical costs of

hospitalization, including follow-ups medications and salaries of the healthcare staff. Transplantation,

costs are projected at $80,407, $92,330, and $92,859, for cord blood transplantations, and $56,563,

$69,830, and $70,395 for bone marrow transplants. This suggests bone marrow sources should be the first

option for donors that are not related. On the other hand, if a suitable match cannot be located in the time

needed, cord blood is the substitute. Cord blood transplantation, in adults, has recently been introduced,

therefore it is possible that effectiveness will improve as scientist make new breakthroughs that will

decrease costs of treatments. “The cost added with stem cells transplantation from either cord blood or

bone marrow lies within a how often new technologies are discovered. Still, because they are expensive

budget impact of these technologies will be costly and demand, will likely increase health costs in the

future. (Costa,V., McGregor, M., Laneuville, P., & Brophy, J. M. 2007).

Another way to look at economic impact of policy decisions regarding ESC research is to

examine them in two categories: the economics of Discovery, and Distribution. There are three

scopes to the economics of discovery. The first is based on the flow of investment capital, and

the financial returns generated by those investments. The second is the value of the information

and social investment. Finally, there is the costs associated with a decision to relinquish

discovery, and although many believe, that public research will not go overseas, the US National

Institutes of Health have funded about $3.5 million through BresaGen in Australia and the grant

came through a U.S. subordinate. This indicates that the funding limits in the US will lead to

investment opportunities for personal gain in other countries and will likely lead to the export of

private research and advancement somewhere else. In fact this is already occurring through

limited liability companies and partnerships. These companies invest in embryonic stem cell


research in China and Korea. One recent private study indicates, “Venture financing has raised

millions from U.S. investors. (Capital Run Partners, 2004). If ESC researchers realize its

potential, developers are likely will reap the benefits. Research and development revenue will be

generated for those countries that support ESC research initiatives, and will likely flow toward

those countries. The money generated from the creation of new technology will help those that

contribute to its development. According to The British-North American Committee (2004),

despite the fact that universities in the United States usually don’t usually take risks, they are

getting involved. Harvard University has announced its plans to develop a stem cell institute to

provide access to stem cell lines at no charge. Other institutions are also building programs

without relying on federal support.

As it relates to the Economics of distribution whether the product is alcohol, performance

enhancing drugs, child adoption, ways to supply demand, supply will be developed. If there is

demand for the results of the research that can cure crippling diseases, a supply market will

grow. In addition, if any trade is inquired about and the product or service is valued, an

alternative trade will grow, as seen in the Prohibition in the United States. The penalties are

foreseeable: the government loses profit, costs associated consumer abuse, and organized crime

will increase which will increase the risk of ESC legislation forcing the distribution of that

benefit to go underground. “This will cause citizens to lose the protection of the nation’s

regulatory system and the nation will lose the tax money. However the patients will suffer any

penalty.” (The British-North American Committee, 2004)

With the moral and ethical dilemmas surrounding ESC research investors look for

indirect ways to invest in research. The different areas of investments have been reduced to eight

categories; large pharmaceuticals, start-up companies small businesses, transportation and


storage, basic science, infrastructure, and private investment. Stem cell research fits into the

categories of science, storage, and transportation. Large pharmaceutical companies are well-

established and experiment in various areas of study and product improvement. These companies

are first because they are known for the research they do on new sought-after drugs, and also

because they create medical devices needed for medical procedures. With the large control they

have in the market, they are able to take advantage of the various areas of research as well net

incomes from the product sales. The second category to stem cell research is in start-up

companies. These companies do not make a large amount of money, and survive by relationships

with larger companies in the same arena. A third option is investing into small business groups

which are the partnership of multiple businesses working together to reach a common goal in

research and product development. The money invested into this category is spent on devices

and money given to small companies that cannot afford the necessary research materials. Also

these companies will work together to achieve an outcome that will succeed by exchanging

research and know-how. Therefore investment in one company will result in investment in

multiple companies. In addition, company clusters share profits, services, and staff, which

reduces the cost of each company and allows more efficient use of the money. The fourth

category is infrastructure, assigning a specific amount of money into roadways, sewer systems,

and overhead to operate, such as electricity and phone service. This helps the state prepare to

accommodate the rush of people, commercial growth, and traffic utilizing its resources. Investing

in infrastructure is equal to investment in large companies; because large companies cannot be

expanded without the proper infrastructure. Infrastructure also includes the building of new

facilities needed to help incorporate research and development. Other examples of infrastructure

are laboratory and storage facilities that help to control startup costs of companies relocating to


the state as well as start-up cost for new companies. Transportation and storage is the last

category of however; transportation is typically already established by a various companies. Also

due to the additional expense of crossing of state lines, there wouldn’t be much incentive to

invest into this category. On the other hand there is a need for stem cell storage in 2009 there

were only few national cell storage companies this is a new and growing field. (Bakalova L.,

Buchholz S., Jung S., Wong Y. 2009)

The creation of stem cell banks is also a topic for debate as well an area to consider for

investments and government funding. Stem cell banks provide a secure location for individuals

to store stem cells for future illness. Stem cells are young cells that can grow and change into

various types of body tissue. Typically, these cells should be harvested at birth or at a young age

for future use. Stem cell banks also give individuals a proactive option for future medical

treatment. Older stem cells can be renewed which is why medical science wants young cells to

repair tissue weakened by age, disease or injury. Cells that are deteriorated are not as healthy as

young ones, which make it difficult for doctors who try to use the patients' cells to treat age-

related diseases. Old cells expand when growth is supported by young tissue. (Sansom, W.

2011). There is also the option to receive these cells by finding a stem cell match much like

being matched for blood or bone marrow. These banks will provide jobs, and additional venues

for research as well as enhance the standard of care for age related illness and disease cured by

stem cell therapy.

However, even with the concern of time and money, there is still hope for the future of

EST research because stem cells therapy is being used in clinics with unquestionable success.

When asking for public opinion of whether or not to fund this research the answer will depend

on who you ask. For example, for the patient being treated for cancer, Alzheimer’s, spinal cord


injuries, and sickle cell anemia the need for funding is critical to their longevity and quality of

life, the answer will be a resounding yes. For the politician who is campaigning for election or

re-election the answer will likely be based on the views of their political party they are associated

with. These different perspectives cause for much rhetoric and debate. In addition there are also

the new medical uses discovered every day, some in the final stage of development and some

being tested in humans to consider. (Scott, C.(2006) Along with the stories of success from those

who have received stem cell therapy, this is another consideration for government funding to be

less rigid.

As worldwide policies are influenced by research, public debate and economic interests

all of which continually changing, these regulations will change as scientific and medical

advances are made. Lack of funding will eventually lead to underground low quality procedures

for those who can afford it which will result have dire consequences without accountability for

the providers. Athletes are already seeking therapy in other countries to speed up the healing and

recovery time of sports related injuries. Also individuals that can afford the cost associated with

travel and treatment cost are willing to travel abroad to receive stem cell treatments that are not

available in the U.S. Government funding will require companies and hospitals to standardize

stem cell research protocol. Health professionals will be required to be properly trained to

provide proper informed consent, as well as monitor and regulate the processes and treatments

for compliance.

Despite all of the debate, and controversy, consideration for government, funding is still

evident in the political and judicial arena According to the Medical Ethics Advisor, “A lawsuit

threatening to end the Obama administration’s funding of embryonic stem cell research was

thrown out and the United States will continue to support and look for cures to deadly diseases


despite the protest that the research relies on embryonic stem cells. Government policy also

allows research on embryonic stem cells provided through private support or donated by

embryos of parents that have been informed of other options such as donating to women with

fertility issues.” (The Medical Ethic Advisor, 2011) the future of embryonic research is still

promising but uncertain as it relates to funding for research but it remains in the political agenda

for now.

IV. Political and legal influences

There is much political controversy over the use of stem cell research. At the heart of the

political issue is whether the government should fund stem cell research and specifically what

types of stem cell should be used in research. Currently “adult” stem cell research is less

controversial and is regularly funded by NIH and other organizations that fund biomedical

research.

On the other hand, human embryonic stem cell research is tremendously controversial.

The cells are harvested in the first few days of growth from a fertilized human embryo and have

the ability to treat a broader range of disease. The controversy lies in the theory that these cells

are capable of becoming a fetus and the extraction of these cells destroys the embryo. There is

very little agreement as to the appropriate scope and funding for human embryo stem cell

research.

The debate centers around which “stem cell lines should be eligible to receive federal

financial support the NIH and other federal agencies.” (Focett, 2009) In addition, there is debate

over whether this prohibition extends to research on stem cells created from other funding

sources. Many universities and labs have been forced to build separate labs and to purchase


separate equipment for human embryonic stem cell research. This allows them to use non-

federal funding for research and avoid allegations that they are using federal funding for human

stem cell research.

The Bush administration and some religious and prolife groups believed that human

embryos have the same right as a human and that anything that destroys a fetus should be

restricted or completely prohibited.

Conversely, numerous Democrats, disease advocacy groups and even some pro-life

Republicans disagree. They argue that human embryo stem cell research has great potential to

treat a wide variety of diseases. They also disagree about the representation of the moral status

of the embryo. Advocates of human stem cell research argue that the benefits far outweigh the

moral concerns and this potential avenue for curing diseases and saving lives should be pursued.

Since the 1990s, the use of federal funds to create, destroy or harm embryos for research

purposes has been prohibited. (Focett, 2009)

The Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholic Church are officially in favor of “adult” stem

cell research; however they denounce human embryo stem cell research as immoral and illegal.

Because of the belief that human life begins at conception, the human embryo has the same

moral rights as an adult. Therefore any research on human embryos is unethical and the

equivalent to murder since it involves the intentional destruction of an embryo. (Knowles)

Similarly many Protestant churches agree, although there is no consensus. Other groups believe

that more public discussion and oversight are necessary and take the position that the medical

research should be distributed evenly and that everyone should have access to it.

In contrast Jewish culture does not believe that an embryo has the same moral status as a

human and also believes that embryos created using IVF have no legal or moral status. They


place an emphasis on preventing and alleviating suffering and the preservation of the human

body. Although in the US there is supposed to be separation of church and state, religious and

personal beliefs do play a strong role in politics. The issue of human stem cell research goes

back to the same moral and religious issue – when does life begin? Unless there is consensus on

this question, religion will continue to play a strong role on this decisive issue.

Permitting research on human embryonic tissue to occur while maintaining respect for

human life is a complex issue. The issue is almost as controversial as abortion and some of the

basis of the controversy goes to the heart of the issue with abortion. When is an embryo or fetus

a human being? Current federal law does not grant embryos the same rights as a fetus. In 2000,

the NIH established guidelines which could be used to regulate the use of embryos in research.

Some specific guidelines include consent must be obtained from both donors, donations must be

voluntary, the donors must understand all of the activities that will be performed prior to granting

consent. It also includes the handling of the embryo by the physician fertility treatment cannot

be the same researcher who would derive the stem cells from potential surplus embryos in order

to ensure that embryos will not be created in excess of those needed for fertility treatment. The

NIH also included guidelines that the embryo cannot be older than 14 days of old. In general

these guidelines appear to be the best legal guidelines for regulation. (George, 2002)

Another legal concern regarding the use of IVF embryos is ownership. The IVF embryos

are the property of the couple. The current guideline states that both mother and father must give

their permission. But what happens if only one donor agrees or one is missing, or is deceased?

Legal rights to IVF embryo’s that are to be used for stem cell research must be clearly defined.

There is also concern about how to obtain the eggs. Under federal law currently it is

illegal to obtain eggs for research purposes. Many researchers and advocates complain there is a


shortage of embryos. On June 11, 2009, New York passed a resolution to permit funding of stem

cell lines derived using oocytes (or female eggs) that have been donated solely for research

purposes. New York became the first state to allow public funds for payment to oocyte donors

that will be used for research purposes. Proponents of women’s health who support stem cell

research express strong concern over the risks for the procedure to extract eggs and the

exploitation of lower income women. There are both physical and psychological risks associated

with this procedure. Offering women compensation, especially for research purposes, may

entice women to go through the process multiple times, increasing adverse risks. There should be

specific guidelines in place to educate women on the risks and also to place caps on how

frequently and how many times they can donate. (Zacher, 2011)

Another legal issue to consider with embryonic stem cell technology is whether it is

patentable. There are multiple considerations to explore. In order for a product to be patentable,

an invention must fall within four classes of statutory subject: processes, machines,

manufactures, or compositions of matter. Embryonic stem cells are found in nature and are a

human life form. The Supreme Court found that a patent cannot be issued for the discovery of

the phenomena of nature. However a genetically engineered micro-organism is patentable and

the courts have consistently held that patent protection is available to purified and isolated

proteins, such as Vitamin B.

The second factor is whether it is a patentable human life form. First, it is arguable that

embryonic stem cells can be included as a human being. Although they are capable of

developing into full embryos, a patent can acknowledges the possibility that embryonic stem

cells can develop into a complete embryo. Regardless a court could not use this argument to

invalidate the patent. Under Roe v. Wade, a stem cell cannot be considered a person. “The


Supreme Court has unequivocally stated that the word person does not include the unborn."

(Miller, 2003) Given the two arguments it is likely that embryonic stem cell research is

patentable. Currently WARF (Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation) holds multiple patents

in the US. They originally entered into a license agreement with Geron, allowing them to

develop therapeutic and diagnostic products. It has also granted other companies non-exclusive

rights. Geron has recently halted its stem cell research due to financial challenges. However

there are several companies out there who have now taken the lead on stem cell research.

In 2008 Rep. Diana DeGette (D–Colo.) introduced legislation which increased federal

ethical oversight of stem cell research. The bill emphasized the need for a new oversight body

within NIH responsible for monitoring all stem cell research in the United States, regardless of

the source of funding. She encouraged President Obama to adopt portions of the bill to

demonstrate his administration’s commitment to funding embryonic stem cell research.

Despite this, current federal support of human embryonic stem cell support has been

severely limited and any type of action has been indecisive. This has left it up to individual to

make their own decisions on how to support and regulate stem cell research. So far California

and Massachusetts have been the most liberal in their decisions regarding stem cell funding and

legislation. California made history when they passed a bond measure to that allocated $3 billion

to stem cell experiments. In addition, the proposition established the California Institute for

Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), governed by a 29-member board authorized to fund research

using embryonic stem cells.

State laws on the issue vary widely from the restriction of the use of embryonic stem cells

from some or all sources or specifically permit certain activities. Stem cell research policy

ranges from statutes that encourages embryonic stem cell research in California, Connecticut,


Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York to South Dakota's law,

which strictly forbids research on embryos regardless of the source. The states that do allow

embryonic stem cell research have also established guidelines for scientists including consent

requirements and approval and review processes for projects.

Some states allow research on aborted fetuses or embryos with consent of the patient,

even though those states normally have restrictions. In addition, almost half of the states also

restrict the sale of fetuses or embryos. Louisiana is the only state that prohibits research on in

vitro fertilized (IVF) embryos. Illinois and Michigan also prohibit research on live embryos.

Finally, Arkansas, Indiana, Michigan, North Dakota and South Dakota prohibit research on

cloned embryos. Several states limit the use of state funds for cloning or stem cell research.

Because each state has adopted different guidelines for stem cell research, there is a great

deal of confusion which has created a more complicated environment for conducting business

and research between states. When two research facilities in different states decide to conduct a

joint project, they then have to determine which state laws to follow. For this reason,

advancement in stem cell research could be severely impacted.

Another problem created by the myriad of state regulations is what fertility patients who

do not have an easy path to donate for research can do with excess embryos. California has

made this process simple since there is a dedicated tissue bank at the University of California,

San Francisco. But patients in states that do not fund stem cell research often are not able to

donate. Finally, clinics in other states can find it difficult to move the embryos to another state,

further limiting accessibility to human embryonic stem cells.


V. Psychological considerations and sociological effects

There are many psychological considerations that come about with stem cell transplants.

Every human being is different and each one may react differently to matters that arise in a life

time, but there are some very common side effects across the board with most patients

undergoing a stem cell transplant. Patients experience similar reactions prior, during and after the

transplant. Some of these common reactions are anxiety, depression, and fatigue. When a patient

must undergo a stem cell transplant, they will usually have loved ones around who become their

caregivers. It is not only the patient that will experience changes with anxiety, depression, and

fatigue, but the caregivers will also experience these comparable emotions. Many times this is on

account of the amount of stress experienced and the extensive length of time that the stem cell

transplant process will be composed of. Just as there are psychological effects, there are

sociological effects as well. How stem cell research and transplants effect society and the effect

it has on the social makeup of the community and welfare of the individuals and families. How

society views stem cell transplants tremendously vary depending on the social composition of

the area and the impact the research and surgeries has had on their life.

Prior to the transplant, it is normal for patients to experience a fear of the unknown,

anxiety, anger, depression, decreased self-confidence, vulnerability, and changes in body image

(Lee, 2007). Patients have no clue what to expect and the fact that this is a newer form of

technology makes it even more unknown and scary. These psychological experiences have a

substantial impact and lasting effect on patients (Lee, 2007). Margaret Brevans expresses that

psychological distress and depressing mood states such as anxiety and depression are most

prevalent before and during stem cell transplants (2010). She goes on to say that during later


phases of transplant, patients demonstrate improvements in their level of suffering along with

interpersonal progression (Brevans, 2010). Patients naturally fear surgery, so when they make a

decision to have one, they desire one that will make them all better.

No matter what the surgery is for, there are always side effects that usually will take

place. Some side effects are minor while others much worse. Some side effects can even lead to

death. Not knowing which side effect one will experience can leave a patient terrified and feeling

hopeless about positive outcomes. Each patient can try to hope for the best when it comes to the

procedure and results, but in reality not everyone will get the best results. This can be a

frightening moment and a challenging decision for many people. As humans, it is impossible to

know for a fact what the safest and best choice is. Due to this, people must consider each of the

alternatives and make a decision on what they think will be best suited for them.

Psychologically, this one decision can be very stressful and draining. During this early period of

decision making, it is not only stressful for the patient, but friends and family experience some of

these same emotions.

Prior to the transplant, there may be some psychological effects on the friends and family

members of the patient as well. They may experience some of the same effects such as

depression, anger, and fear of the unknown. They are wondering and questioning what the best

choice is just as the patient is. They are just as worried about the outcome as the patient is. As

humans, we do not like lose loved ones, nor do we like to see them in pain. Not only are

caregivers worried about the patient making the best choice, but they are also giving up a lot of

their time to be there for the patient. They are taking on all of the patients’ duties as well as

trying to keep up with theirs. The caregivers may begin to feel fatigue and distress from giving

up so much time in order to be there for the patients’ needs. The Institute of Medicine report


identified that meeting psychosocial health needs of the patients and family is the current

exception rather than the common occurrence in this current health care climate (Cooke, 2007).

According to Cook, because of the unique nature of the transplant experience, psychological

assessments and interventions should be a high priority (2007). Just as it is important that the

patient understands all of the possibilities, it is important that family and friends understand all of

these possibilities as well, even if the most possible outcome is death. They need to understand

that the surgery is not only going to affect the patient, but that it is going to affect them

psychologically as well. It is up to the team of doctors working with the patient to ensure the

family and friends know this and completely understand its’ importance. When the doctors know

that every person has a clear understanding of the possibilities, it is at that moment when positive

steps can be taken to help everyone during the healing process.

During the phase when patients are hospitalized and preparing to undergo stem cell

transplants, levels of anxiety and depression increase (Packman, 2010). According to Packman,

the patients’ emotional stability before the hospitalization is a very crucial factor in determining

how well the patient will be able to handle the hospitalization part (2002). Doctor Fernando

Dimeo performed a study with patients who were hospitalized waiting to undergo stem cell

transplants. In his study he found that those patients who were able to get some aerobic exercise

while they were hospitalized experienced a reduction in their fatigue and an improvement in

distress (1999). To get these to his conclusion, he used fifty nine patients who were receiving

blood stem cell transplantation. He has twenty seven patients in the training group and thirty two

patients in the control group. The twenty seven patients in the training group each biked on an

ergometer in the supine position following an interval training pattern for thirty minutes daily.

Patients in the control group did not train at all. The patients’ psychological distress was


evaluated at admission and again at discharge. When the patients were discharged, fatigue and

somatic complaints had increased significantly in the control group. The training group had a

substantial improvement in several scores of psychological distress which included loss of some

fear, lower obsessive-compulsive traits, and less interpersonal sensitivity (Dimeo, 1999).

Exercise itself is a form of stress, and forcing your body to move from its normal state of rest

provokes a natural "fight or flight" response that activates endorphins – hormone like substances

in the brain, chemically similar to narcotics, that are believed to control our moods and emotions

along with our responses to pain (Keiley, 2006). By releasing these good endorphins and making

the patient happy, it is possible to slowly turn the patients’ doubts into belief that they will be

fine. With a little sureness, they have the possibility to make huge positive transformations to

better aid them in the healing process.

While the patients are hospitalized for the cell transplant surgery, usually their loved ones

stay by their side. With the caregivers spending many hours at the hospital, this causes even

more stress. They are now seeing how close the surgery is. They are also cooped up in the

patients’ room. Although they can leave and go outside to get fresh air, they spend much of their

time in the room with the patient to be support for the patient. They usually put their needs to the

side and hide their fears in order to display an upbeat attitude to the patient in hopes of keeping

their spirits up. This can leave them feeling tired all of the time. With them being tired, worried,

and spending hours on end with the patient, they can quickly spiral into a depressed state. This is

the same emotions as the patient may feel during the treatment procedure; the only difference is

how the onset of these emotions begins. Where the patient is worrying about their own life and

what choice to make, the caregiver is worried about the person they love and ensuring they are as

happy as can be expected in their situation.


Just as there are common reactions before the transplant, there are also similar

psychological effects with patients after the transplant. These psychological effects play a huge

role in how the patient heals and how they will continue forward with their life after the

transplant. According to Liz Cooke, the recovery after transplant can come with prolonged

physical and psychological obstacles, and intense social strain on the patient’s caregiver, friends

and family members (2009). In addition, the transplant experience can consist of multiple

hospital readmissions for serious complications, drawn out recoveries and long-term issues.

Often the psychological and social issues can be more complicated for the health care team than

the medical issues (Cooke, 2009). During treatment, the patient is sick and feeling down. They

hope to be healed and to get their life back, but they are overtaken by the huge steps that must be

taken in order to do a stem cell transplant. They are given restrictions on what they can and can’t

do which may seem like a hamper on their life. These negative feelings and thoughts can quickly

bring a person down into a depressed state. Once they are in that state of despair, it is often a

challenge to get them back into a positive spirit.

Much research is being conducted on this psychological issue with stem cell research

and doctors are studying how to keep caregivers from falling into the dark tunnel of depression.

According to a research performed by Stephanie Rexilius and a team of others in an outpatient

clinic, caregivers experienced huge signs of depression, anxiety, general fatigue, and emotional

fatigue (2002). The team of researchers divided the caregivers up into two groups of 13. One of

the groups was the control group. This group of caregivers would get the usual nursing care and

a 10 minute supportive visit from one of the researchers. The other group was the experiment

group and the caregivers in that group received two 30 minute massages each week for three

straight weeks. After three weeks they re-examined all 36 caregivers and the results showed


significant declines in anxiety scores, depression, general fatigue, and emotion fatigue for

individuals in the massage therapy group only (Rexilius, 2002). In the control group, the anxiety

and depression had decreased a little, but fatigue and burden increased. It is very important that

the caregivers be given some support and are not just seen as caregivers. Just as the patients’ life

has changed, the caregivers’ life has as well. They exhausted from the prolonged changes in their

schedule to care for their loved one. In many cases, this means they have been putting their

wants and needs to the side to satisfy those of the patients.

Stem cell transplants have a varied effect on societies. Some people are for it while others

think it is beyond what human beings should be practicing. Many people will argue that doctors

are trying to play God. Scientists, policymakers, political candidates, patient-advocacy groups,

religious organizations, and other members of the public have become entangled in the debates

over stem cell research (Summers, 2010). Stem cell transplants have sociological effects on

scientists, on patients, and religious assemblies. These groups in our society all view stem cell

transplants in a different manner and they all would like for different outcomes. Some have

similar concentrations, but how the procedure is conducted is sometimes the differentiation

between their desires of what is right and what is not.

The valued potential of embryonic stem cells has led to urgent pleas from the scientific

community and research advocates for U.S. government funding. Scientists argue that they have

been prevented from making significant advances in the treatment of health problems because of

a long-standing moratorium on using cells from human embryos in federally funded projects,

limiting work to private and for-profit ventures (Rowley et al, 2002). Scientist wants the

government to fund this research because they feel they can make many more beneficial

discoveries. Scientists believe that what they are trying to do is to the benefit of society as a


whole. They believe they are doing research to save lives. This may be true to them, but societies

as a whole does not all agree with this deliberation. Scientists assume that increased public

understanding of science will lead to increased public support. Yet, instead of a fully informed

and deliberative public, past research indicates that it is more likely that the public by nature is

‘miserly’, with individuals relying on their value predispositions and only the information most

readily available to them for the mass media and other sources in order to formulate an opinion

about science controversy. (Nisbet, 2005). According to Jensen, “reproductive” human cloning

has been resisted by most governments and publics around the world, but “therapeutic” cloning

has found a more positive reception (2012). With more people viewing therapeutic cloning more

positively, many organizations will still argue that scientists and Doctors should not be allowed

to charge so much for the surgery when it is still an experiment. The International Campaign for

Cures of Spinal Cord Injury Paralysis asserts “that it is unethical to charge these patients for

experimental interventions that are not yet proven safe and effective by properly conducted

clinical trials” (Murdoch, 2010). Although therapeutic cloning has been seen in a more positive

way by society, there are still many mixed views among society. There are many people that

would still disagree stem cell research is a valuable and worthy research.

Just as scientists find stem cell transplants a constructive tool, patients may or may not

agree. Patients are going to experience some social impact which may play a role in their opinion

on the surgery. How they view stem cell transplants will greatly depend on the possibilities of

their survival and the outcome of their surgery. If the patient can afford the surgery and the

surgery proves make a huge difference in their life by saving their life or by restoring some part

of them they were missing, and then will more than likely view the research valuable. By word

of mouth they will spread the importance of the surgery and they will make an impact on many,


but society will still include those who do not think stem cell research is a worthy trial. Patients

may experience some emotional problems due to the surgery. According to Kristen O’Connor,

emotional functioning- the ability of a person to perform at work, school, or homemaking- is

most compromised early in the treatment process (2009). Kristen states that the majority of

survivors of allergenic transplantation resume their roles at home and in the community after

transplantation (2009). The appearance of new technology can suggest apprehension and bring

about uncertainty among segments of the population about its uses (Chapman, 1999). It is not

uncommon for society to be skeptical about new technology. The media will portray an image

that they believe and this can have a huge impact on how society views it. We as humans tend to

be a little gullible at times and we fall victim too many instances to those views we see and hear

from the media. This is where society gets a huge amount of their social views. Even with

scientists and patients voicing their opinion on stem cell transplants, there are still religious

groups, and depending on their beliefs, they may or may not have completely opposite views on

stem cell transplants.

Religious groups usually have some higher power that they instill all miracles with. Many

opponents, including some religious leaders, believe that stem cell research raises the same

moral issues as abortion (Vestal, 2008). They feel that their higher person should be in charge

with making humans and with determining who lives and who dies. According to the pew forum,

there are many different views depending on the belief of the church. It states that the American

Baptist churches in the U.S.A have no precise policy on the issue; rather it states that “one must

be guided by one’s own relationship with God and Scripture.” (2008). Catholicism supports adult

stem cell research but is against embryonic stem cell research since it creates or destroys human

embryos. The pew forum goes on further to say that the Episcopal Church declared itself in favor


of stem cell research as long as the embryos used would have been destroyed otherwise, the

embryos were not created exclusively for research purposes and the embryos were not bought or

sold (2008). The National Association of Evangelicals supplied a statement in 2005 expressing

its disagreement to stem cell research (Jew Forum, 2008). With the interesting differences

among religious groups, it is fair to say that even they greatly vary on the topic. Some are for

while others are against. Even more interesting is how some are for adult stem cell transplants

and some are only for embryonic stem cell transplants. These religions are all part of our society.

They all play a huge role in how society around them views the research.

With stem cell transplants effecting patients and caregivers psychologically before,

during, and after treatment and society playing a huge role on the impact this technology will

have on our lives, it is hard to say where this research will be in five, ten, and twenty years. Over

time, society is becoming more accepting of therapeutic stem cell transplants, but it is hard to

know what outcomes may arise as society continues to battle among each other over whether it is

beneficial to the human race or detrimental. No matter study is being performed; there are always

some kinds of sociological effect or psychological effect taking place on the person undergoing

the surgery.

VI. The technology in its cultural context, media influence

Stem cell research (SCR) is a topic that is familiar to people across the globe, but the

manner of how it is accepted and/or managed differs greatly from country to country.

The United States established an act in 2003 that prohibited cloning. As a punishment,

there is a large fine and jail time involved for anyone who tries therapeutic or human cloning.

The implementation of this act was straight forward, yet establishing legislation to ban research


done on embryos has been difficult. This is just a reflection on how much of an issue this is for

Americans to grasp. Consistent with the punishment for anyone involved in cloning, there are

also steep penalties to those who would attempt to sell stem cells for a profit. In a current case, as

recent as January this year, four men were arrested in Los Angeles for running a $1.5 Million

dollar scheme to sell stem cells to patients with terminal diseases. One was a licensed midwife

who worked at a maternity clinic. He obtained umbilical cords and used them to create stem

cells. None of these treatments were approved by the FDA and of course creating and selling the

cells was not either. It was found that patients paid anywhere between $10,000 and $50,000 for

these treatments. All the men involved have been charged, but the total number of people

affected is not known.

The United Kingdom has the HFEA (Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority) in

place to regulate in vitro fertilization. With this act in place, there can be no research done on

eggs that were older than 14 days because they exhibit traits that many think indicate that growth

of the nervous system had begun. Research licenses are only granted for specific reasons and

these reasons are few. One reason is if the stem cells are going to be used for contraceptive

development. Other reasons are if the research is for the detection of gene abnormalities before

implanting, for researching the causes of miscarriages and to discover something that will

increase the knowledge of embryo development. One specification spelled out in the United

Kingdom’s act is that embryos should not be created specifically to be used in testing. The only

exception is if there is a specific need to be met and the regular supply of extra embryos cannot

satisfy the need. Legislation in this country is respected all over the world and serves as a model

for others, but there is no ban on therapeutic cloning. HFER (Human Fertilization and


Embryology Regulations) is in place to ban cloned human embryos from being implanted and

carried to term by a surrogate.

Stem cell research is measured as a priority in Japan. The government fully supports it as

well as the citizens. After the discovery of the impact of iPS cells (pluripotent cells), these are

cells that can adapt to become any other kind of cell for an organ or tissue, the drive behind the

research became even stronger.

In Europe, (specifically France, Germany, The Netherlands, Spain, along with 11 others)

several countries are on the same page with the United Kingdom for a lot of their legislation, but

most do not agree with laws allowing therapeutic cloning. They wanted to ban cloned embryos

from being implanted in women and being carried to term, but found it was easier to just ban

cloning all together rather than picking a choosing the instances they didn’t want to allow.

Germany, Austria, Portugal and Ireland, Norway and Poland are completely opposed to any kind

of research that requires the destruction of embryos. That action is illegal in these countries.

All these countries are similar in the way that they all ban implanting cloned embryos and

carrying them to term. The differences are between the US and Europe vs. the United Kingdom.

The US and Europe want to ban therapeutic cloning where the United Kingdom has nothing

restricting it.

With all this exposure and legislation, the media has to have some level of effect on the

amount of exposure to the public and what they know about it. Currently, there are a lot of

current events that involve this topic and probably the most popular is in the sports arena. Being

from Indianapolis, IN, one name that has recently been in the local news a lot lately is Peyton

Manning focusing on the medical issues he has recently been experiencing in regards to the

bulging disk in his injured neck. The kind of stem cell treatment Peyton received is not yet


approved in the United States, so he had to travel to Europe in order to this done. This particular

process involved taking Peyton’s own fat cells and using them to regenerate the damaged nerves

in his neck. These adult stem cells (called pluripotent stem cells) easily grow and become a

specific cell for an organ or tissue wherever used. Stem cells from embryos do not work that

way. There is no evidence that this type of treatment actually works, so there is much speculation

around it. Obviously, with Indiana pursuing another super bowl title, the media has given high

exposure to Peyton’s issues and how he is handling it. It seems as though there has been more

focus on whether he will be able to play again vs. the kind of treatment he is undergoing.

Mel Gibson is a celebrity who was very vocal about being against stem cell research on Good

Morning America in 2004. He was strongly opposed to destroying embryos due to ethical

standards. His standing was that adult cells could accomplish everything embryonic cells could,

so they should not be used at all. His goal was to continue researching this to come up with

findings to support it. Even with the reminders of the health dilemmas of Christopher Reeves and

Michael J Fox on the show, he was not moved on his standing. He cited his faith as the

motivation behind his view.

Christopher Reeve, or better known to the world as Superman, faced a challenge that was

like Kryptonite to his movie character when he was thrown from a horse in Spring 1995. This

accident left him as a quadriplegic that required him to be in a wheelchair and use a breathing

unit. Spinal cord injuries and stem cell research were his passions. He started the Christopher and

Dana Reeve Foundation which focused on treatments and possible cures for spinal cord injuries

as well as neurological problems.

Another celebrity in the public eye regarding stem cell research is Michael J Fox.

Probably best known for his role as Alex Keaton on the television show Family Ties, he was

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadriplegia


diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease in 1991, but did not announce it publically until 1998. Since

then he has semi-retired from acting, but remains very active in the push to find a cure. The

Michael J Fox Foundation founded a decade after his diagnosis, is vigorously funding ways to

improve the lives of person’s who currently have Parkinson’s and therapy they endure. The hope

is not only to improve the symptoms for current patients, but to eventually find a cure while it

can still benefit many of those with the disease today.

On 60 Minutes this past January, it was exposed that some doctors have taken advantage

of patients by offering stem cell treatments for diseases that cannot be cured. This false hope is

not only unfair to the patient and their families, but also to the people who truly could benefit

from the treatments and have positive results. On the show, they featured a family with a child

that had cerebral palsy. The family could not get untested stem cell treatments in the United

States, so they took him overseas to get these treatments believing promises they had been told

that they could find a cure (or at least some relief for the child’s symptoms). In the end, none of

these treatments produced any improvements for him. In reality, an actual cure is probably still

several years away. In spite of this fact, Michael J Fox is optimistic that a viable stem cell

treatment can be found to transform the treatment of Parkinson’s disease.

To the public, stem cell research is controversial, but it is still of great interest. In Canada

and the US, research is highly exposed. 9 out of 10 people viewed the benefits of stem cell

research are far better than the risks and believe long term SCR will be beneficial to a majority of

the public. There have been no surveys done in Europe to get opinions, but a majority of people

requested more information on the benefits and risks indicating that the curiosity on the subject

is there, but the knowledge is not.


There are many influences on the way people feel about stem cell research. A few of

those are as follows: politics, church, social status, the purpose of the research and if they are

actually a patient. In the political arena, whether or not the public agrees with the research

frequently correlated with the political environment of the country.

According to Panno (2005), there is a term in his book called Religiosity. This is how

frequent a person attends church per week. There is positive correlation between that number and

the disapproval of SCR which presumes the more faith someone has, the more they do not

believe in stem cell research. Public opinion is much more positive when the embryos used are

extra left over from IVF, rather than from embryos that were created by cloning for the purpose.

Even though stem cell research has the potential to cure diseases, there are still a lot of

people opposed to it. The biggest issue many have with stem cell research is how the cells are

collected. Stem cells that are used in research mostly come from embryos that have been

donated. The common social outlook is that these cells are human even though they are not and

will not be grown in a woman’s womb. Harming or destroying these cells in their sense is the

same as harming or destroying a human. Since one common view is that this research is

destroying humans, is it right to destroy a human to save another?

Another social issue is with any research being funded by the government. In August

2001, President Bush approved that federal funding could be used for stem cell research as long

as the embryos were originally produced for reproduction purposes and are just no longer

needed. The other requirement is that consent needed to be given in order for them to be used.

Many when congress members and citizens were not happy about this decision. The choice to

have the government fund stem cell research was based on his personal opinion/preference and

the consensus was the he should not allow his personal opinions order the direction of research.


When something is covered in the news, it has a way of influencing people’s thinking

whether they want it to or not. A person could be totally neutral on a topic (let’s say stem cell

research), but the media may reveal something in its coverage that may slightly or even totally

change their mind one way or another. Perhaps that person didn’t know that stem cells could

improve a patient’s quality of life even when they have a dilapidating disease. That those same

stem cells could transform into a different type of cell to repair an organ or some tissue. It could

also reveal that the cells used are actually embryos that if implanted in a womb could grow to be

a human. Another fact that could be exposed is that if an embryo is allowed to grow (even

outside the womb), it may start developing a nerve system. All these facts are things that could

sway anyone’s thoughts one way or another.

Unfortunately, when there is a need for someone to use stem cell research, they are

usually extremely sick and it is usually used in an attempt to save someone’s life. This is

definitely something that would change a person’s mind about whether or not to believe in the

research and what it could do. So knowing that, it was not surprising to find that more than 90%

of patients surveyed were in support of stem cell research. Pallo (2008). These same patients

were also mostly against the intervention of politics preventing or restricting the use of SCR.

They wanted the doctors do what was needed in order to heal them above everything else, but

they are were very cautious about participating in clinical trials since they were still mostly

experimental. Even though they wanted to be healed, they did not want to chance something that

had not been tested previously.


VII. Implications of the environment

The Animal Testing Debate

Although the major ethical battle regarding stem cell research is the use of human

embryos, there is another underlying ethical issue. The use of animals for stem cell research has

paved the way for many advancements in stem cell technology. It is important for researchers to

show the progress made with the stem cells of animals, specifically with mice, in order to gain

approval to test on human cells. According to an article from Understanding Animal Research

(2004), “more than a decade of research on the biology of mouse stem cells has helped pave the

way for developing human stem cell lines.”

Since it is not as controversial as using human embryos, the debate over stem cell

research on animals has received much less attention over the years. In Australia, embryonic

germ cells have been used for some studies because although they are not as “suitable for

establishing cell lines for research, they do not develop tumors,” while the embryonic stem cells

have; as human embryonic germ studies are not currently legal there, the embryonic germ cells

of mice are still being used for research (“Ethics of Stem Cell Research,” n.d.).

An interesting end to this controversy will come when stem cell research has become so

advanced that animal testing will no longer be necessary. This seems to be the next natural step

in the process of testing on stem cells. Since humans are not similar enough to animals, in order

to have more accurate medical findings, human stem cells must be eventually used for laboratory

testing. It is believed that stem cell research could transform drug development, which is

currently done through the use of animal testing (Knight, 2008). Drug testing is a typically

expensive and time consuming process of trials. Matthew Knight (2008) states that “before new


drugs can go forward for clinical trials, it’s necessary for the chemical compounds which make

up a drug to undergo thousands of tests for toxicity before beginning trials on animals, initially

on rodents and then often dogs.” This is obviously a sensitive issue for animal rights activists

and the introduction of human stem cells in drug testing could put this controversy to rest.

Recently, animal rights organizations have been vocal about supporting stem cell research for

this reason; PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) has publically expressed their

support for stem cell research.

Animal Cloning for Food Products

It was only 15 years ago that Dolly, the infamous cloned sheep was exposed to the public

with a reaction of shock, amazement, and from many, disapproval. Over the past few years,

animal cloning has been seen as a more acceptable practice by the general public and has even

become fairly common in the production of dairy and meat products. Although this was not

immediately agreed to, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) “has concluded that meat

and milk from cow, pig and goat clones and the offspring of any animal clones are as safe as

food we eat everyday” (2010).

Of course, there are plenty of activist groups that argue against the cloning process saying

that it can be harmful to animals whose cells are used and cause potentially fatal conditions to

their clones. In fact, in rebuttal to the FDA’s approval of cloned animals for food, the AAVS or

American Anti-Vivisection Society (2010) has questioned the FDA by claiming that cloned

animal food products are anything but safe for consumers and that animal cloning itself has an

over 95% failure rate. According to the AAVS (2010), “consumer watchdog groups… have

criticized the FDA’s analysis as flawed, misrepresentative, and scientifically unsound, based on

limited data supplied primarily from the cloning companies themselves.” The American Anti-


Vivisection Society is not alone in these complaints about the approved sale of cloned animal

meats, especially since there is no label on any cloned meat or dairy products to differentiate

them from other products. Therefore, many consumers may be unaware that they could have

purchased food made from a cloned animal.

This is a debate that will continue as will the debate surrounding human embryonic stem

cells being used. Aside from the pro-life and religious battles, there are many people who are

truly under the impression that embryonic stem cells will have a negative impact on our future

because instead of using them for medical research to combat disease, scientists may start

cloning humans rather than using less controversial methods of conception like in vitro

fertilization. There is no telling what level science could take these new medical technologies to

and although it may seem strange and unethical to most, living, breathing human clones could

very well become a reality.

Effects of Chemicals and Toxins

There are many chemicals used in food and pharmaceuticals that people are exposed to

without even realizing it. Researchers believe that these chemicals can have a negative effect on

human stem cells as stem cells react differently than other cells in the human body would react to

toxins or chemicals (Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 2012). Unfortunately, there is not enough

information about chemical effects on human stem cells and more research is needed to help

understand the danger to these cells. This much needed research is taking place at Rensselaer

Polytechnic Institute and the University of California, Berkeley. Bioengineers there will “study

how chemicals in drugs and our environment impact our stem cells” (Rensselaer Polytechnic

Institute, 2012).


If it is proven that stem cells can be altered or damaged by chemicals in our food or

drugs, the findings could support the argument for the use of embryonic stem cells since they

will not have been exposed to these chemicals. Adult cells obviously run the risk of chemical

exposure, making them a less accurate source for research if they have been altered in some way.

The goal of this research is to eventually be able to “add a screening component to test foods and

pharmaceuticals” to proactively stop the damage to adult stem cells (Rensselaer Polytechnic

Institute, 2012). It is critical that stem cell testing be used on potentially toxic chemicals in drugs

because it is not legal to actually test pharmaceuticals on a human being prior to their release into

the market. This leaves us with the question of whether or not the drugs we take will have

harmful long-term side effects that may not have been realized in the preliminary testing phase.

Stem cell testing will allow us to see the adverse effects of medication on actual human cells

without ever distributing the drugs.

Similar to chemical damage in adult stem cells, environmental toxins can sometimes be

carcinogenic and have a damaging effect on the human body, resulting in cancer and other severe

long-term issues. According to the article, Ethics of Stem Cell Research, “stem cells may be

useful for screening potential toxins in substances such as pesticides before they are used in the

environment” (n.d.). Currently, these types of experiments are done on animals. However,

experimentation on animals has not proven to be accurate enough to identify the toxins that may

harm humans (Kang & Trosko, 2010). Therefore, toxicity testing on human stem cells will be

the best way to obtain true results.

Although embryonic stem cells seem to be the most accurate choice for most testing, we

must realize that only adult stem cells have actually been exposed to outside elements as the

embryo is more protected. This must be considered when testing stem cells in vitro against a


potential toxin as results may be different if the same toxin was tested against an adult cell with

other factors involved (Kang & Trosko, 2010). A less invasive and perhaps less controversial

option for testing toxins is to use umbilical cord blood. New drug screening and toxicity testing

has been done using blood from the umbilical cord since it is so easily obtained and typically is

discarded in delivery rooms anyway (Kang & Trosko, 2010).

Stem Cells and Plants

Plants are used for a variety of reasons including agriculture and herbal healing remedies.

Using stem cells to allow plant growth to reach its full potential can only be beneficial to our

health and economy. Plants provide us with food and oxygen, therefore the overall health of the

environment depends on their growth. As authors Cristel Carles, Jennifer C. Fletcher and Vijay

K. Sharma noted in Maintenance of Stem Cell Populations in Plants, (2003), “Long-term stem

cell maintenance is critical for the development habits of plants… to achieve maximal growth

under constantly changing environmental conditions.” Considering the increase in extreme

environmental conditions over the past few years, this is especially timely and important. It is

essential to be able to re-generate crops after a natural disaster such as a tsunami or hurricane

floods and uproots much of the plant life in the area.

Unlike human or animal stem cell research, one of the benefits to studying and using

plant stem cells is that there is really no controversy surrounding the topic. Some of the same

toxins that stem cell research can help to detect in food and drugs may be problematic in the

pesticides used on plants. These toxins could be harmful to the plants as well as the air they are

inadvertently polluting. The more research that is done to counteract the negative effects of

these chemicals, the easier it will be to transform plant cells for food safety. There are also no

obstacles to obtaining plant cells which makes experimenting and creating more plants much


easier and certainly safer than human or animal stem cell research. An interesting fact is that the

stem cells of plants are self-renewing, so they “provide an endless supply of stem cells for

study,” (Carles, Fletcher & Sharma, 2003).

Overall, stem cell research is beneficial to our environmental health. This, in turn, makes

us as humans healthier as we are ingesting foods and drugs with less toxicity and breathing

cleaner air. Although there are some questions surrounding meat made from cloned animals,

for the most part, both plants and animals are being affected positively by stem cell research and

this will likely be the case for humans as well in the near future. Although there are always

going to be ethical issues involved with such a controversial process, the point of stem cell

research is to improve medical technology for all of our health and for the good of the

environment.

VIII. Moral and ethical implications

Stem cell research and treatment is a controversial subject because of the moral and

ethical procurement of these cells. An article on Perspectives found in The New England Journal

of Medicine covers questions on killing human embryos and the dilemma of when human life

begins. (Embryo Page 1). Supporters in opposition to Embryonic Stem Cell research believe that

extracting stem cells from blastocyst is morally the same as harvesting organs from a living baby

to save lives. Some people base their religious beliefs that ensoulment occurs at conception.

“Conception, is also promoted by many of those who rely on revealed scripture” (Fischbach

Page 1). For people who hold such beliefs, research on stem cells and destruction of embryos is

not tolerated. People, who hold dear to religious beliefs, will argue that we all started as

embryos. One reason for this belief could be the strong religious beliefs of people are directly


proportional to the overcritical perception towards science and technology. “It was the

combination of strong religious beliefs, lower education achievement, and lower generalized

trust that most clearly distinguished them from scientific elitists” (Einsiedel Page 2). Based on

this belief, the opposition argues that we must treat embryos as possessing the same qualities as

fully developed human being. Embryos after conception and traveling down to the womb within

the female body are just cells and have yet to start to form a living human being.

Another argument is the slippery slope which states that a relatively small first step leads

to a chain of related events culminating in some significant effect. In this case people will argue

stem cell research will lead to therapeutic cloning. Therapeutic cloning allows an embryo to

grow for about two weeks. After this growth period, the stem cells would be extracted from the

developing embryo and encouraged to grow into a piece of human tissue or a complete human

organ for transplant. This falls into the belief that embryonic stem cell research before the 14

day growth period will be similar to the therapeutic cloning.

Defining when human life truly begins is a difficult subject. Does human life begin at

conception which has been promoted by religious figures? This is a good starting point, but to

other people the implementation of the embryo onto the uterine wall is the best starting point for

definition of human life. This stage in the reproduction cycle of human life is considered to be

the last developmental stage by the United Kingdom and many other countries throughout the

world except for the United States. In the article stem cells: science, policy, and ethics,

Fischbach explains, “Up to embryonic day 14, the blastocyst has no central nervous system and,

in our view, cannot be considered sensate. We know remove organs from patients who have

been declared brain dead but who are still alive in some sense” (Fischbach Page 2). If an embryo

has no central nervous system, does taking an embryo before this stage in development


equivalent to murder? In the United States, “We have emphasized differences between

embryonic and adult stem cells hold more promise than embryonic stem cells and that research

on embryonic stem cells is therefore unnecessary” (Einsiedel Page 1). Also, the US Conference

of Catholic Bishops has ruled that adult stem cells are viable option for research and treatment

compared to embryonic stem cell research. This is major reason why the United States is ten

years behind in this technology compared to other countries that have less strict rules.

While the United States has banned financing for embryonic stem cell research, the

United Kingdom has passed two important laws to regulate stem cell research. The Human

Fertilization and Embryology (HFE) Act of 1990 was passed to force the Human Fertilization

and Embryology Authority (HFA) to regulate creation, storage, and use of embryos for research.

11 years later in 2001, the HFE act was changed to allow the use of embryos for therapeutic

research. The United Kingdom has moved forward with research from embryos while the

United States has moved backwards by banning financing for embryonic stem cell research.

Also, the FDA currently bans any treatment other than cancer for the adult stem cell therapy

because scientists need to study the effects on the human body.

In the article, Ethical boundary-work in the embryonic stem cell laboratory, “Much was

made of the fact that if ‘spare embryos’ were not used for scientific research they would be

discarded” (Cribb page 736). Spare embryos are used in stem cell research because they will

never be used for IVF or are not suitable for implantation. Other spare embryos have been

screened by Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD) and have been shown to be at a higher

risk to develop genetic disorders or diseases. If no one has uses these spare embryos, they will

be discarded or left to perish. Stem cell research could be seen as less wasteful or some form of


rescue from destruction. Any embryo not used by In Vitro Fertilization will be discarded if not

freely donated for stem cell research.

Some scientists researching stem cells only believe that embryos donated from PGD.

They believed spare embryos from routine In Vitro Fertilization should be frozen before day

three of development because they have yet to become a blastocyst. After the third day they

should not be discarded but used for stem cell research. This will help preserve embryos that are

not used to create a baby and could be used later for IVF or stem cell research. This will help

reduce the discarding of embryos but will increase the amount stored for future usage. The

storage of embryos could increase electrical bills to keep them frozen. Keeping the embryos

frozen will lead to the ethical problem of pollution to produce electricity. In the article Ethical

Boundary-Work in the Embryonic Stem Cell Laboratory, “A few scientists agreed that PGD

embryos were a good source for stem cell research, but were uncertain whether they would work

on IVF embryos” (Cribb Page 737). One scientist said they would use embryos created by PGD

because they are created by people who want to have kids that are not going suffer from potential

genetic disorders or diseases. Some scientists are concerned about waste because stem cells are

very limited and a precious material.

Other stem cell research scientists believe that embryos should be created solely for

research. One senior scientist in the article Ethical Boundary-Work in the Embryonic Stem Cell

Laboratory said, “At the moment the way you grow human stem cells is you get embryos that

will be thrown away if you don’t use them, and the parents have given informed consent for

them to be used by researchers” (Cribb page 738). The same scientist also believes that it would

be unethical to just let these unwanted embryos be discarded when they could be used for

research. Also, the scientist believed he or she would not work with embryos which have been


created solely for the purpose of removing stem cells. This means scientists are not just creating

human embryos just to destroy for the purpose of scientific research.

From the previous example, scientists are resisting a more lenient public policy on stem

cell research. These scientists have been distinguishing between two forms of waste. One form

of wastes is material that has been created for research. The other form of waste is existing

material which might not be used at all. The scientists interviewed for this article share the same

views echoed in global politics. They share same view of 18 countries that have formal policies

allowing the procurement of human embryonic stem cells from excess embryos or PGD screened

embryos. Six other countries including the United Kingdom out of the 18 countries allow the

development of human embryos for research purposes only.

Now that we covered the ethical issues of the source of embryos, we can discuss the

perception of embryos. In the article Ethical Boundary-Work in the Embryonic Stem Cell

Laboratory, Cribb states, “However, by viewing early embryos as ‘just cells’, the scientists we

interviewed with religious beliefs had been able to reconcile their scientific and religious beliefs”

(Cribb page 740). Senior scientist number 2 had quite strong religious beliefs and he or she

believed in abortion for certain circumstances. The scientist had no problem with using an

embryo for stem cell research knowing it was in the early stages on human development. This

goes against the main religious belief that conception is the beginning of human life. Another

senior scientist number 16 said, “Stem cells growing in a dish are not embryos” (Cribb page

740). This proves that educated Christians believe that embryonic stem cells do not go against

the religious views because cells grown in Petri dish do not make it a human being. Senior

scientist number 8 believes, “Very small microscopic collections of cells, which are going to be

put into a bin to be equitable with person” (Cribb page 740). Also, the same scientist stated, “A


six-day-old embryo has a different status to a six-week-old fetus, but I’d argue that six weeks is

closer to being something than a six-day-old” (Cribb page 740). This statement shows stem cells

after six days of growth are not considered to be a human being.

The attaching of a human embryo into a woman’s uterine wall was a huge factor for

determining their perception of an embryo. Junior scientist number 9 states, “An embryo to me

is on its way to being a fetus when it’s implanted, but while it’s in the dish, personally I don’t

feel it’s got the capabilities of becoming human …… I really believe that’s what it’s going to be,

and that it’s untouchable” (Cribb Page 741). An embryo which is five days old will have 20

cells. This means you cannot see any features of a human being. Senior scientist number 16

explains, “If you plot the likelihood of a fertilized egg becoming a baby, you can put it in on day

one, it’s quite low, day two, and day three, it’s quite good, day five it’s particularly good. But

then it ceases, because it starts to hatch, so by day seven, day eight, although it’s more

developed, it has no potential of developing” (Cribb Page 741). This means an embryo in the

mother’s womb has a chance of not surviving anyway. So harvesting embryos is basically

saving it from destruction.

Another ethical dilemma is how we treat stem cells with respect. Senior scientist number

10 in an interview states:

I can’t look upon an embryo as a baby or potential person when I’m moving it around the

lab all day, and there’s a chance I could drop it on the floor. I’m poking it, taking bits out

of it; I can’t possibly think that and carry on working in this area….. But I do think you

have to treat all tissue with respect, and that runs through everything I do (crib Page 741).


Why should scientists treat stem cells with respect? The answer is because it can be used to

create new tissue from the same person without human body rejecting the new tissue. Respect

for stem cells comes from the therapeutic aspect of curing diseases from your own cells.

Since we are done talking about the ethical concerns in the laboratory where embryonic

stem cell research takes place, athletes with injuries are now moving towards stem cell treatment

for injuries. These sport icons are looking for a faster way to heal an injury or repair an injured

shoulder, knee, elbow or wrist. It doesn’t matter as long as the treatment involves no

performance enhancement supplements such as HGH. Human Growth Hormone is currently

banned by all major sports in the United States as well World Anti-Doping Authority (WAPA).

WAPA was skeptical at first about stem cell treatment for athletes, but has stated that PRP

treatment is not performance-enhancing as long as it is not administered with HGH or IGF-1

injections. PRP treatment is similar to stem cell treatment which opens the door for athletes

from all sports to use this treatment heal faster without getting fined, suspended or banned from

sporting events.

One of the most famous quarterbacks in the NFL, Peyton Manning, travelled to Europe

last summer to partake in therapeutic stem cell treatment to heal an injury in his neck. The

specific type of stem cell treatment Peyton Manning endured was mesenchymal stem cells. This

type of stem cells is extracted in numbers from fat or bone marrow. The doctors will separate

the stem cells from the fat or bone marrow with a centrifuge. Once this is done, the will inject

the stem cells into the part of the body which is injured. Peyton Manning was able to recover

from the neck injury that sidelined him for the entire 2011 regular season of the NFL. Without

this stem cell treatment, it might have not been able to play again and retire. Is it considered

cheating just like performance enhancement drugs? Well the NFL currently has no rules banning


the use of stem cells. Peyton had to go overseas to get the stem cell treatment done because the

United States has put a ban treating sports injuries or any other medical issue except for cancer.

The FDA did this to do more studies of the effects of stem cell treatment on the body before

allowing it to be used here. Again this has led to the United States falling behind.

Another NFL athlete besides Peyton Manning has undergone stem cell treatment outside

the United States. In 2010, defensive end Jarvis Green visited a doctor outside the United States

to heal his knee. He had two previous failed knee surgeries in a row and was desperate to heal

the injury as fast as possible. After receiving the stem cell treatment and time allowing for the

stem cells to repair his injured knee, Jarvis Green was picked signed by the Houston Texans. He

was able to play for one year in the NFL before retiring again. Jarvis stated in the ESPN

Magazine, “’Before, I couldn’t walk up the stairs,’ he told The Mag. ‘Three weeks later, I went

on to an NFL training camp and didn’t miss a day’” (Assael Page 2). Based on this quote, stem

cells are very powerful tool to heal the body, but are it fair to other sport stars who cannot afford

to travel overseas to get the treatment.

The NFL is not the only sport where athletes are going overseas to treat their injuries with

stem cells. Bartolo Colon, a former AL Cy Young winner, went to the Dominican Republic in

the Caribbean to undergo stem cell treatment on his pitching arm. The Yankee pitcher was

struggling to throw over 80 miles per hour after a rotator cuff surgery. After the stem cell

treatment, Bartolo was throwing over 90 miles per hour again which drew the eye of the MLB.

Major League Baseball suspected the pitcher of using Human Growth Hormones along with

stem cells to heal his body arm faster and improve his performance. The league has called for

records of his treatment to prove that Bartolo did in fact use HGH. MLB assumed this because

the doctor who administered the treatment would use HGH to help the stem cells form faster into


the appropriate cells. Bartolo’s doctor has been steadfast on his position he did not use HGH

while treating him with stem cells which does not go against any doping rules within baseball.

The fact that the rule both in the NFL and MLB does not ban the use of stem cell

treatment for athletes will open up pandora’s box. Athletes will have longer careers by getting

treating their body with stem cells to repair damage done by injuries. I can see the NBA and

NHL athletes signing for this radical treatment to get back on the floor or ice a lot quicker than

surgery. If this is the case, you could see the NFL switching over to longer regular season to

rake in more money because an injured player can get back on the field quicker compared to med

evil technology a few years ago. Owners will reap the benefits while the player repeatedly sent

back out onto the field to possibly get hurt again. We still don’t know if stem cells can be

repeatedly used to repair the body because it could have possible side effects.

This is the major reason why the FDA in the United States has put a ban on culturing

stem cells. In the ESPN Magazine article, “In August 2010, the U.S. Food and Drug

Administration brought the hammer down on Regenerative Sciences, filing a federal to prevent

Centeno from culturing” (Assael Page 2). The FDA claims that Centro was the cultivating and

manipulating blood drawn from the human body and turning into some sort of a drug. This

ruling is based on the fact a drug needs to be tested and found safe before a doctor can prescribe

it to a patient. The ruling does allow treatment of this type of stem cells for cancer patients but

not to the entire public. This has led to doctors setting up offshore clinics to use this treatment

without penalty by the FDA. The ruling in effect has forced athletes to go overseas and pay with

their own money to be treated with stem cells to heal an injury.

If the FDA has ruled that the modification of stem cells a form of a drug, why hasn’t any

one banned it for performance enhancement? The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) is the


foremost trusted agency if performance enhancement drug rules enforcement. WADA was built

to police substances athletes may take to enhance their skills in sports such as cycling, soccer,

and other sports played around the world. WADA started to examine blood-spinning therapies

to attempt to ban any form of stem cell therapy. The agency was studying PRP to see if it was

derived from steroids. After many tests of PRP treatment, they found out that it doesn’t contain

any performance-enhancing drugs as long as the treatment did not use HGH or IGF-1 injections.

Because PRP is related to stem cell therapy treatment, the use of stem cells is not considered a

drug. The United States needs to remove the hold on this revolutionary new treatment in order to

advance further in this technology or risk falling behind rest of the planet.

Besides helping athletes heal from sport related injuries, stem cells can be used to cure

diseases or be used for cancer treatment. Stem cells can be harvested from your own bone

marrow and fat. First, the stem cells need to be separated from the rest of the cells by using a

centrifuge to spin at high speeds. Once this process is completed, we can use these cells to create

new organs, skin, etc. which will not be rejected by human body where the cells came from.

This is very useful for organ transplants where you need to use someone related to you in order

to complete a kidney transplant. Stem cells can be used to treat cancer because studies from

animals showed injecting these cells into the affected area will shrink tumors by substantial

margin. This will be less painful compared to the current way to shrink cancerous tumors with

chemo therapy which basically kills almost all cells entirely in the human body. This therapy

will cause hair loss, loss of appetite, and nausea. Why should we deny a therapy for cancer

which would not cause as much pain and do the same job of shrinking tumors? The answer is

simple. The FDA is afraid of the side effects that could occur by using these treatments.


Is it ethical and moral to keep people alive longer with stem cell treatments? We

currently have population on average around 6 billion on this planet. If our species continues to

find ways of living older and longer, the human population will continue to grow. Our planet

can barely provide enough resources to sustain 6 billion people currently. I understand death is

difficult subject to discuss as an organism that can feel pain of loss one dying, but we need to

understand death in a necessary balance to keep a population of a species in check with its

environment. Pollution will continue to rise to sustain the growth of our population because we

can replace organs with our own cells which will increase our life expectancy further. I think we

need to discuss the long term impacts stem cells on our planet before we start to implement it on

a mass scale. Diseases are way for nature to claim back life in order keep a healthy population.

Are we any different than the rest of the species on this planet? The major difference is we have

emotions which lead us to find a way to beat death at its own game to live longer.

IX. Conclusion

Stem Cell Research poses many promises for a healthier future for the human race,

presenting cures that can have a profound effect on society. But with this, society is faced with

new questions about scientific and moral boundaries. What are we willing to sacrifice? How do

we balance the promises of human stem cell research with the concerns of the public?

Congress is faced with the issue of determining whether stem cell research merits federal

funding and how this research should be regulated. In general, the idea of stem cell research is

incredibly controversial and raises the age-old debate – When does human life begin? Pro-life

and pro-choice activists believe that this research is morally right or wrong depending on their


position. This issue must be considered carefully. With the advancement of medical science at

risk, how do we balance this against our moral standards?

Stem Cell research has produced many economic questions and considerations as well as

political and legal influences. With stem cell transplants becoming more and more popular, it is

important that our generation start to understand the psychological considerations and

sociological effects. Just as with any use of technology, there are moral and ethical

consequences. Either way, stem cell transplants are quickly changing the way medicine is

practiced. It is up to society to determine how much of a change we want.

We believe that if the United States does not start allowing more stem cell research and

development that we will be light years behind other countries that allow this life altering

technology. Can you imagine a life without disease, or life without dilapidating injuries? It is a

very real possibility. Will you be the next one to go overseas for this controversial technology to

end your suffering or that of a loved one?


Resources

(2004). Embryo Ethics -The moral logic of stem-cell research. The New England Journal of

Medicine. Retrieved 3/10/2012 from

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp048145.

(2004) .Mel Gibson, Stem Cell Advocate. Retrieved April 11th, 2012 from

http://www.bioethics.net/2004/10/mel-gibson-stem-cell-advocate/

(2012). Dr. Purita in sports illustrated. Retrieved 3/31/2012 from

http://www.stemcellorthopedic.com/sports-illustrated-article.html

Allen, K. (2005, May 24). IVF and embryonic stem cell research: the social and ethical issues.

AD2000 - a journal of religious opinion. Retrieved April 1, 2012, from

http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/2005/may2005p12_1931.html.

American Anti-Vivisection Society. (2010). Retrieved 4/2/12, from

http://www.endanimalcloning.org/foodsafety.shtml.

Assael S. (2011). Chasing the miracle cure. ESPN the magazine. Retrieved 3/31/2012, from

http://espn.go.com/espn/story/_/id/7058209/peyton-manning-last-star-linked-stem-cell-

therapy-espn-magazine.

Background and Legal Issues Related to Stem Cell Research. (2002, June 12). Retrieved March

5, 2012, from Almanac of Policy Issues:

http://www.policyalmanac.org/health/archive/crs_stem_cell.shtml

Bakalova L., Buchholz S., Jung S., Wong Y. (2009) The Economics of Stem Cell Research

Retrieved from http://www.acus.org/docs/0406-

Guide_Benefits_Responsibilities_Opportunities_Embryonic_Stem_Cell_Research.pdf.

http://www.acus.org/docs/0406-Guide_Benefits_Responsibilities_Opportunities_Embryonic_Stem_Cell_Research.pdf

http://www.acus.org/docs/0406-Guide_Benefits_Responsibilities_Opportunities_Embryonic_Stem_Cell_Research.pdf

http://www.endanimalcloning.org/foodsafety.shtml

http://www.stemcellorthopedic.com/sports-illustrated-article.html

http://www.bioethics.net/2004/10/mel-gibson-stem-cell-advocate/


Baum S. (2012) Basketball’s influence on stem cell treatments in sports medicine. Retrieved

3/31/2012, from http://www.medcitynews.com/2012/03/basketballs-influence-on-

stem- cell-treatments-in-sports-medicine/.

Bevans, M. (2010, December 4). Health-Related Quality of Life Following Allogeneic

Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation. ASH Education Program Book. Retrieved

March 22, 2012, from

http://asheducationbook.hematologylibrary.org/content/2010/1/248.full.

Bok, H., Schill, K. E., & Faden, R. R. (2004).Justice, ethnicity, and stem cell banks. Lancet,

364(9429), 118-121.

http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.devry.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?

vid=34&hid=12&sid=a29afdbc-a952-4fb1-8cdb-6c065ce36cdb%40sessionmgr13.

British North America Committee (2004) A Guide to the benefits, responsibilities, and

opportunities of stem cell research Retrieved from

http://www.acus.org/docs/0406Guide_Benefits_Responsibilities_Opportunities_Embryon

ic_Stem_Cell_Research.pdf.

Campbell, A. (2005). Ethos and Economics: Examining the Rationale Underlying Stem Cell and

Cloning Research Policies in the United States, Germany, and Japan. American Journal

Of Law & Medicine, 31(1), 47-86.

http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.devry.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=a29afdbc-

a952-4fb1-8cdb-6c065ce36cdb%40sessionmgr13&vid=36&hid=12.

Campbell, A. T. (2009, May 11). Outlook for Stem Cell Research: Emerging Legal Issues.

Retrieved March 6, 2012, from The Nelson A Rockefeller Institute of Government:

http://www.rockinst.org/pdf/health_care/2009-05-11-stemcell_Campbell.pdf

http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.devry.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=a29afdbc-a952-4fb1-8cdb-6c065ce36cdb@sessionmgr13&vid=36&hid=12


http://www.acus.org/docs/0406Guide_Benefits_Responsibilities_Opportunities_Embryonic_Stem_Cell_Research.pdf

http://www.acus.org/docs/0406Guide_Benefits_Responsibilities_Opportunities_Embryonic_Stem_Cell_Research.pdf

http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.devry.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=34&hid=12&sid=a29afdbc-a952-4fb1-8cdb-6c065ce36cdb@sessionmgr13

http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.devry.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=34&hid=12&sid=a29afdbc-a952-4fb1-8cdb-6c065ce36cdb@sessionmgr13

http://asheducationbook.hematologylibrary.org/content/2010/1/248.full


Carles, Cristel., Fletcher, Jennifer C. & Sharma, Vijay K. (September 30, 2003). Maintenance of

Stem Cell Populations in Plants. Retrieved 3/31/12, from

www.pnas.org/content/100/sppl.1/11823.full.

Caulfield, T. (2010). Stem Cell Research and Economic Promises. Journal Of Law, Medicine &

Ethics, 38(2), 303-313. doi:10.1111/j.1748-720X.2010.00490.



Chapman, A., Frankel, M., & Garfinkel, M. (November, 1999). Monitoring the Frontiers of

Biomedical Research. Stem Cell Research and Applications. Retrieved April 1, 2012,

from www.quasar.ualberta.ca/edse456/Stem%20Cells/aaasreport.pdf.

Cooke, L. & Gemmill, R. (2009, May 25). Psychological Consequences of Hematopoietic Stem

Cell Transplant. National Center for Biotechnology Information. Retrieved March 22,

2012, from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3105969/.

Cort, J., Henry, G., & Dunn, K. (2005, April 19). Stem Cells: Early Research. Retrieved April

19, 2012, from Nova: PBS: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/stem-cells-

research.html

Costa, V, McGregor, M., Laneuville, P., & Brophy, J. M. (2007). The Cost-Effectiveness of

Stem Cell Transplantations from Unrelated Donors in Adult Patients with Acute

Leukemia. Value In Health (Wiley-Blackwell), 10(4), 247-255.


a952-4fb1-8cdb-6c065ce36cdb%40sessionmgr13&vid=31&hid=12. doi:10.1111/j.1524-

4733.2007.00180.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3105969/

http://www.quasar.ualberta.ca/edse456/Stem%20Cells/aaasreport.pdf



http://www.pnas.org/content/100/sppl.1/11823.full


Cribb, A., Farsides, B., Michael, M., Wainwright, S., & Williams, C. (2006). Ethical boundary-

work in the embryonic stem cell laboratory. Sociology of Health & Illness. 26 (6).

Retrieved 3/10/2012, from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-

9566.2006.00539.x/full.

Dimeo, F. C., Stieglitz, R.-D., Novelli-Fischer, U., Fetscher, S. and Keul, J. (1999), Effects of

physical activity on the fatigue and psychologic status of cancer patients during

chemotherapy. Cancer, 85: 2273–2277. Retrieved March 29, 2012, from

doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097- 0142(19990515)85:10<2273::AID-CNCR24>3.0.CO;2-B.

Downey, R., Geransar, R. (2008). Stem Cell Research, Publics’ and

Stakeholder Views. Retrieved March 8, 2013 from

https://www.law.ualberta.ca/centres/hli/userfiles/Downey-Geransar.pdf

Einsiedel, E., Gaskell, G., Hallman, W., Jackson, J., Olsthoorn, J., & Priest, S. (2005). Social

Values and the Governance of Science. Science. 310 (5756). Retrieved 3/10/2012, from

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/310/5756/1908.full.

Ethics of Stem Cell Research. (n.d.). Retrieved 3/30/12, from

http://www.biotechnologyonline.gov.au/human/ethicssc.html.

Fischbach, G. & Fischbach R. (2004) Stem cells: science, policy, and ethics. The Journal of

Clinical Investigation. 114(10). Retrieved 3/10/2012, from

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC525749/.

Focett, J. W. (2009). Beyond the Low Hanging Fruit: Stem Cell Research Policy in an Obama

Administration. Yale Journal of Health Policy, Law and Ethics.

http://www.biotechnologyonline.gov.au/human/ethicssc.html

https://www.law.ualberta.ca/centres/hli/userfiles/Downey-Geransar.pdf


Fox News (2011) Appeals court overturns federal ban on federal funding for stem cell research

from http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/29/appeals-court-overturns-ban-federal-

funding-stem-cell-research/.

George, E. P. (2002). The Stem Cell Debate: The Legal, Political and Ethical Issues Surrounding

Federal Funding of Scientific Research on Human Embryos. Albany Law Journal of

Science & Technology.

Halcom C. (2008) Academics: Economic benefits of stem cell research years away. Crain's

Detroit Business, p24(45) from http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.devry.edu/ehost/detail?

sid=a29afdbc-a952-4fb1-8cdb.

Harris, G. (2010, Septemeber 9). Stem Cell Financing Ban Ends, for Now. Retrieved March 2,

2012, from The New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/10/health/policy/10stem.html?_r=1&ref=stemcells

Hennessy-Fiske, Molly. (2012). 4 accused of fraud in stem cell case. Retrieved April 9th, 2012

from http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.devry.edu/hottopics/lnacademic/ (LexisNexis

Academic)

Herpich, Nate. (January, 2012). 60 Minutes Reports on Stem Cell Fraud; Viable Therapies

Moving Forward but Still Years Away. Retrieved April 12th, 2012 from

http://blog.michaeljfox.org/2012/01/60-minutes-reports-on-stem-cell-fraud-viable-

therapies-moving-forward-but-still-years-away/

Jensen, E. (2012). Scientific Sensationalism in American and British Press Coverage of

Therapeutic Cloning. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 89(1), 40-54.

Retrieved April 1, 2012, from Academic Search Complete,

EBSCOhost.doi:10.1177/1077699011428592.

http://blog.michaeljfox.org/2012/01/60-minutes-reports-on-stem-cell-fraud-viable-therapies-moving-forward-but-still-years-away/

http://blog.michaeljfox.org/2012/01/60-minutes-reports-on-stem-cell-fraud-viable-therapies-moving-forward-but-still-years-away/

http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.devry.edu/hottopics/lnacademic/

http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.devry.edu/ehost/detail?sid=a29afdbc-a952-4fb1-8cdb

http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.devry.edu/ehost/detail?sid=a29afdbc-a952-4fb1-8cdb

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/29/appeals-court-overturns-ban-federal-funding-stem-cell-research/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/29/appeals-court-overturns-ban-federal-funding-stem-cell-research/


Kang, Kyung-Sun. & Trosko, James E. (December 16, 2010). Stem cells in Toxicology:

Fundamental Biology and Practical Considerations. Toxicological Sciences, 120, S269-

S289. Doi:10.1093/toxsci/kfq370.

Kato, Kazuto and Kawakami, Masahiro. (2010). 2010 Report: Stem Cell Research in Japan:

Policy Changes in The Era of iPS Cells. Retrieved on April 11th, 2012 from

http://www.worldstemcellsummit.com/2010-report-stem-cell-research-japan-policy-

changes-era-ips-cells

Keiley, L. (2006). The Secret to Stress Relief. Mother Earth News, (216), 68-71 Retrieved April

1, 2012, from Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost.

Knight, Matthew. (December 23, 2008). Scientist: Stem Cells Could End Animal Testing.

Retrieved 4/2/12, from

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/12/22/stem.cell.drug.tests/index.html.

Knowles, L. P. (n.d.). Religion and Stem Cell Research. Retrieved from Stem Cell Network:

http://www.stemcellnetwork.ca/uploads/File/whitepapers/Religion-and-Stem-Cell-

Research.pdf

Lee, J. (2011, November 7). Sexual Dysfunction After Stem Cell Transplantation: Psychological

Impact. Medscape: Medscape Access. Retrieved March 22, 2012, from

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/748578_5.

Mel Gibson Against Stem Cell Research (2004). Retrieved on March 30th, 2012, from

http://www.thefish.com/movies/features/11621974/Mel-Gibson-Against-Embryonic-

Stem-Cell-Research/.

Miller, J. (2003). A Call To Legal Arms: Bringing Embryoic Stem Cell Therapies To Market.

Albany Law Journal of Science & Technology.



http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/748578_5

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/12/22/stem.cell.drug.tests/index.html


Murdoch, C. E., & Scott, C. (2010). Stem Cell Tourism and the Power of Hope. American

Journal Of Bioethics, 10(5), 16-23. Retrieved April 1, 2012, from Academic Search

Complete, EBSCOhost. doi:10.1080/15265161003728860.

Nisbet, M. (April, 2005). The Competition for Worldviews: Values, Information, and Public

Support for Stem Cell Research . Oxford Journals | Social Sciences | Int. Journal of

Public Opinion Research. Retrieved April 1, 2012, from

http://ijpor.oxfordjournals.org/content/17/1/90.short.

O'Connor, K. (2009, July 8). Study Examines Quality Of Life After Stem Cell Transplantation -

The Myeloma Beacon. Multiple Myeloma News & Information - The Myeloma Beacon.

Retrieved April 1, 2012, from http://www.myelomabeacon.com/news/2009/07/08/study-

examines-quality-of-life-after-stem-cell-transplantation/.

O’Neal, Peaches. (September 2007). Social, Political and Ethical Implications of Stem Cell

Research. Retrieved April 12th, 2012 from

http://newsflavor.com/world/usa-canada/social-political-and-ethical-implications-of-

stem-cell-research/

Packman, W., Weber, S., Wallace, J., & Bugescu, N. (2010, April 12). Bone Marrow

Transplantation - Psychological effects of hematopoietic SCT on pediatric patients,

siblings and parents: a review. Nature Publishing Group : science journals, jobs, and

information. Retrieved March 30, 2012, from

http://www.nature.com/bmt/journal/v45/n7/full/bmt201074a.html.

Panno, J. (2005). Stem Cell Research: Medical Applications and Ethical Controversy. New

York, NY: Facts on File, Inc.

http://www.nature.com/bmt/journal/v45/n7/full/bmt201074a.html

http://newsflavor.com/world/usa-canada/social-political-and-ethical-implications-of-stem-cell-research/

http://newsflavor.com/world/usa-canada/social-political-and-ethical-implications-of-stem-cell-research/

http://www.myelomabeacon.com/news/2009/07/08/study-

http://www.myelomabeacon.com/news/2009/07/08/study-


Persky, A. S. (2009, January). Stem Cells: The Changing Legal Environment. Retrieved March 8,

2012, from DC Bar:

http://www.dcbar.org/for_lawyers/resources/publications/washington_lawyer/

january_2009/stem_cell.cfm

Peyton Manning Underwent Stem Cell treatment for Neck Injury (2011). Retrieved on March

30th, 2012 from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/19/peyton-manning-stem-cell-

treatment_n_970763.html.

Potential Uses of Stem Cells. (n.d.). Retrieved 3/30/12, from

http://www.biotechnologyonline.gov.au/human/eticssc.html.

Pountos, I., Giannoudis, P. (2005). Biology of Mesenchymal Stem Cells. Retrieved March 8,

2012, from http://www.injuryjournal.com/article/S0020-1383(05)00285-8/abstract.

Quinn, W. T. (2005). Making the Case for Stem Cell Funding. (cover story). Jibs, 18(44), 1-11.

http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.devry.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?

vid=24&hid=12&sid=a29

Religious Groups' Official Positions on Stem Cell Research - Pew Forum on Religion & Public

Life. (2008, July 17). Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. Retrieved April 1, 2012,

from http://www.pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethics/Religious-Groups-Official-

Positions-on-Stem-Cell-Research.aspx

Rensselear Polytechnic Institute. (January 17, 2012). Researchers Study How Chemicals in

Drugs and Around Us Impact Stem Cells. Retrieved 3/30/12, from

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012_01/rpi-rsh011712.php.

Rexilius, S., Mundt, C., Megel, M. E., & Agrawal, S. (2002). Therapeutic Effects of Massage

Therapy and Healing Touch on Caregivers of Patients Undergoing Autologous

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012_01/rpi-rsh011712.php

http://www.pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethics/Religious-Groups-Official-

http://www.pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethics/Religious-Groups-Official-

http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.devry.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=24&hid=12&sid=a29

http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.devry.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=24&hid=12&sid=a29

http://www.injuryjournal.com/article/S0020-1383(05)00285-8/abstract

http://www.biotechnologyonline.gov.au/human/eticssc.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/19/peyton-manning-stem-cell-

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/19/peyton-manning-stem-cell-


Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplant. Oncology Nursing Forum, Volume 29(Number 3),

E35-E44. Retrieved March 30, 2012, from

http://ons.metapress.com/content/n32p3381648866h8/.

Rowley, Janet D., Elizabeth Blackburn, Michael S. Gazzaniga, and Daniel W. Foster. 2002.

“Harmful Moratorium on Stem Cell Research.” Science 297:1957. Retrieved April 1,

2010.

Sansom, W. (2011) Personal stem cell banks could be staple of future health care. (2011).

Biomedical Market Newsletter, 21757-759.



Scott, C.(2006) Excerpted from Stem Cell Now Copyright (c) 2006 by Christopher Thomas

Scott. Excerpted by permission of Pi Press, a division of Penguin Books. Retrieved from

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5204335.

Sinskey, A. M. (2005). The Consequences of Limiting Stem Cell Research: Health and

Economic Considerations. Pharmaceutical Discovery, 5(4), 22-24.



Sousa, P., Galea ,G., Turner, M. (2006). The road to providing human embryo stem cells for

therapeutic use: the UK experience. Retrieved March 8, 2012, from

http://www.reproduction-online.org/content/132/5/681.short.

Stem cell law thrown out. (2011). Medical Ethics Advisor, 27(9), 107.





http://www.reproduction-online.org/content/132/5/681.short



http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5204335



http://ons.metapress.com/content/n32p3381648866h8/


Stem Cell Research Funding: Policy and Law. (2012). New Atlantis: A Journal of Technology &

Society, 34114-128.



Stehr, N. (2004). The social and political control of knowledge in modern societies. Retrieved

March 8, 2012, from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.0020-

8701.2003.05504014.x/abstract?

userIsAuthenticated=false&deniedAccessCustomisedMessage.

Summers, L. H. (2012, January 22). The 21stCenturyEducation. New York Times. p. 26.

Retrieved April 1, 2012, from Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost.

The National Institutes of Health, (2001) Stem cell information, retrieved from

http://stemcells.nih.gov/policy/2001policy.

Turner, Leigh. (2005), Bioethics, Social Class, and the Sociological Imagination. Retrieved April

10th, 2012 from

http://www.ahc.umn.edu/bioethics/prod/groups/ahc/@pub/@ahc/@bioethics/

documents/asset/ahc_asset_178874.pdf

Understanding Animal Research. (updated November 2004). Mice and Stem Cell Research.

Retrieved 3/31/12, from http://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (April 26, 2010). Animal Cloning. Retrieved 4/2/2012, from

http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/SafetyHealth/AnimalCloning/default.htm.

Vestal, C. (2008, July 17). Stem Cell Research at the Crossroads of Religion and Politics – Pew

Forum on Religion & Public Life. Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. Retrieved April

http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/SafetyHealth/AnimalCloning/default.htm

http://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk/

http://www.ahc.umn.edu/bioethics/prod/groups/ahc/@pub/@ahc/@bioethics/documents/asset/ahc_asset_178874.pdf

http://www.ahc.umn.edu/bioethics/prod/groups/ahc/@pub/@ahc/@bioethics/documents/asset/ahc_asset_178874.pdf

http://stemcells.nih.gov/policy/2001policy

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.0020-8701.2003.05504014.x/abstract?userIsAuthenticated=false&deniedAccessCustomisedMessage






1, 2012, from http://www.pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethics/Stem-Cell- Research-at-

the-Crossroads-of-Religion-and-Politics.aspx.

Vestia, C. (2006) States eye stem cell research economics, Retrieved from

http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage.action?

siteNodeId=136&languageId=1&contentId=79291.

Wert, G. & Mummery, C. (2003) Human embryonic stem cells: research, ethics, and policy.

Oxford Journals. 18(4). Retrieved 3/10/2012, from

http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/content/18/4/672.full.

Young, C. (2001-2002). Comparative Look at the U.S. and British Approaches to Stem Cell

Research. Retrieved March 8, 2012, from http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?

collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/albany65&div=45&id=&page.

Zacher, A. (2011). Oocyte Donor Compensation for Embryonic Stem Cell Research: An

Analysis of New York's "Payment for Eggs Program". Albany Law Journal of Science &

Technology.

http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/albany65&div=45&id=&page

http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/albany65&div=45&id=&page

http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=136&languageId=1&contentId=79291

http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=136&languageId=1&contentId=79291

http://www.pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethics/Stem-Cell-

team e section j research paper - final - copy

Documents

stem cell

stem cell

rensselaer

academic search

central nervous

north american

stem cell

stem cell