Annenberg Classroom - Speak Outs - Should the government fund embryonic stem cell research?

Speak Outs

Speak Out

Should the government fund embryonic stem cell research?

Though they’re microscopic, stem cells have proven to be an explosive point of debate between medical researchers and right-to-life advocates.

Scientists want to use embryonic stem cells (ESC) to study diseases. They believe that working with human cells at their most basic could lead to breakthroughs in treating spinal cord injuries, Parkinson’s, and other life-threatening conditions. President Barack Obama issued an executive order allowing federal money to pay for ESC research in 2009.

The debate over stem cells is a perfect example of our government’s system of checks and balances in action. The president issued an executive order to get something – expansion of a controversial field of medical research – that was at odds with a law Congress had already passed. The framers of our Constitution knew government leaders would run into these sorts of conflicts, which is why they made a provision for separation of powers. In this case, the judicial branch weighed in and took the side of Congress. But the checks and balances continue, since President Obama is appealing the ruling.

But getting the cells for the research means destroying a human embryo; in other words, it means destroying a form of human life. This has set some of the public against it.

A recent ruling by a federal judge has overturned President Obama’s executive order, saying that it violated a 1987 law prohibiting the use of taxpayer money for any research in which a human embryo is destroyed.

Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia took a broad approach in his ruling.

Say a research project doesn’t destroy an embryo itself. If it uses previously obtained embryonic stem cells, it still is not eligible for federal funding. “If one step or ‘piece of research’ of an ESC research project results in the destruction of an embryo, the entire project is precluded from receiving federal funding,” Lamberth wrote.

Medical researchers said the ruling could be devastating to their work. Todd McDevitt of Georgia Tech’s Stem Engineering Center said his state doesn’t offer money for stem cell research; his projects were funded primarily by federal taxpayer money.

“It prevents me from going forward with future plans,” McDevitt told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. “Now I’m going to have to either find other funding resources or wait.”

Research could also be conducted on adult stem cells, which can be gathered from a living person without harm. Scientists say these are not as flexible and easy to work with as embryonic stem cells. Opponents think they should find a way.

"Frequently people will say why are you opposed to stem cell research,” Ron Stoddart, director of Nightlight Christian Adoptions, told CNN. “And of course are answer is, we're not. We're opposed to the destruction of the embryos to get embryo stem cells."

Stoddart’s organization was part of the group that filed the initial lawsuit that led to Judge Lamberth’s ruling. President Obama has since said he will appeal the decision. In a statement, the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research said, “We have full confidence that the extensive, deliberative process that shaped federal guidelines now in place will be upheld upon further review.”

What do you think?

Do you think the judge ruled correctly by stopping federal funding of ESC research? Are you comfortable with your family’s taxpayer dollars supporting medical research that could save lives when that research destroys a form of human life? Do you think that scientists should find a way to work on adult stem cells instead?

Join the Discussion

Your First Name:
Your Teacher/School:
Your City/State:
Your Comment: limited to 2000 characters including spaces

Thank you for commenting.
Your comment is awaiting approval.
Click here to view all Speak Outs

Comments

4/23/2012
NC

Hafsah
Cary High
I think the judge made a wrong decision because, I bet many of you have said, there are CURES from the stem cells. Basically stem cells don't have a scheduled job to do in the human body so they reproduce and help out the body they even make ORGANS. Giving an advantage to those who are in need in transplants. All embryotic stem cells are is just a group of stem cells. THEY GIVE CURES!!! And yes there are human stem cells but those aren't as popular. And since people are having abortions why not give those stem cells to a good cause! And the umbilical cord! Instead of throwing that away why not freeze it and use it later on in the future if something wrong happens (God forbid). THERE, I AM FOR EMBRYOTIC STEM CELLS RESEARCH!

3/29/2012
Richland Wa

Quentin
hanford
if the stem cells could be cloned then we would only need one embryo. therefore one life compared the betterson of helping people who suffer, who come closer to depression and suicide due to their genetic deformities, i believe that is ethical. reality also shows us that one human life isnt worth the future of others. (11th grader) if it really matters.

3/29/2012
richland

quentin
student/ hanford high
what about the people who abort thier children? they permit destroying human life dont they? why not outlaw abortion? the U.S is hyprocritcal. they should permit this with federal funding. this will be a good thing our money goes to instead of whatever they do with it.

1/11/2012
Richmond Va

Chalet' A.
Simon
Disagree ! scientist can you stem cells to cure major diseases now and in the near future. Everyone need to thank that your were one a embryo and a embryo is still human. All human life should be accounted for! It's not worth taking any ones life. This just staying yeah it's ok to have an abrotion!!! so in closing i disagree!. Coming From a 10th Grader.

9/7/2010

Bejamin
Alexander, Nimitz HS, Texas
I think that federal funding should be provided to stem cell researchers only if they use adult stem cells to do the research. Using human embryos for research is, in my point of view, barbarism. All human life should be accounted for! Humans are animals but we have something all other animals lack, Enough intelligence to define what is wrong and what is not, a conscience. So unless we are unintelligent idiots we should consider a less barbaric way for scientific and medical advancement.

9/1/2010

Sophia C
Nimitz, Irving, TX
I believe that the judge made both a correct and incorrect ruling. Correct because, as it states, there was already a law saying that what President Obama did wasn’t right, but incorrect because I am perfectly comfortable with the idea that my family’s taxpayer dollars are being put towards a, frankly, noble cause, and when research does continue, I, myself, will continue to sleep like a baby (pun not intended). Sure, if researchers can find a way to get the same kind of information from adult stem cells, I’m all for it! But until then, we have to use what’s available to us, and what has proved useful. Abortions, embryos created specifically for research purposes, whatever. To all the haters: yes, I have morals, but you can’t deny that in order for our society to flourish, there are certain steps that we need to take in order to get to that stage. I’m going off the most basic definition for a human: something that is above animals, has the capacity for language (even babbling), and displays a higher level of thought (even at a young age this becomes pretty apparent). So people saying that destroying an embryo is comparable to destroying a human life… not really working for me. Of course we’re destroying a potential human being—but who’s to say what that embryo will grow up to be? A genius? A slacker? A “died young” story? Someone with a disease we’re trying to cure through stem cell research? If sacrifices aren’t made, there is no way to advance. Look at it in the long run: approximately 42 million abortions occur every year. Without that sacrifice, that’s 42 million more people in our already over-populated world. We’ll never know what these embryos grow up to be. At the same time, we may squander the potential of human beings that have been waiting for a cure their entire lives.

9/1/2010

Kyle T.
Nimitz, Irving, Tx
I fully support the judges decision. Even though stem cell research can help us discover so much and can possibly give us leads to new medicines to cure mass diseases, its not worth taking the life from a living human being. Basically, if the judge would have voted for it, he would have been granting the right for scientific abortions. The judge was right in this decision, seeing how there's a law protecting the right against stem cell research, and if I was in his position I would've done the same. The whole stem cell research thing. Although helpful, is completely uncivil and inhumane.

9/1/2010

Tiffany R.
Nimitz, Irving
The judge did make the correct decision in my opinion. I do believe that scientist should be able to discover new methods of curing cancer and other diseases, but at the same time they should not take someone's life to do this. If the person has opted for them to take their life, then that's a different scenario. It should truly be up to the individual that is going to have their life taken from them. If there are certain people that want to give up there lives to have the research done, then it is fully up to them and not up to any scientist or any judge. As of the decision the judge made goes, I do agree to a certain extent.

9/1/2010

Erika M
Nimitz, Irving, Tx
This could honestly go both ways. I think it is good because we can develop new medicines and cures for very dangerous disease that really need to be cured. They could increase human life and lives could be saved. It sounds bad when you say “destroying a form of human life” but I think that if that human life authorizes it before the fact, it isn't murder or anything like that. If one person's life saves the life of another, whats the harm?

9/1/2010

Joselyn C.
Nimitz, Irving,TX
I believe that the judge ruled incorrectly by stopping federal funding of ESC research. This is the type of research that could help a lot of people. And yes, it's killing a human being,but while the research will kill one embryo, it can also save millions of people who already have a life. I'm totally against abortion, and I can see how some people may think this is immoral, but I think that on this issue you really have to see the big picture. This could save lives. And yes, the research can also be done with adult stem cells, but it's not as effective. Today, we have all kinds of diseases that we have no idea how to cure. People are dying everyday, we simply can't wait 20 or 30 years. This research could really help make a big impact on how we live. I am comfortable with my parents paying taxes supporting that specific medical research. It does sound wrong, and, in a way it is wrong, but this is the future. Someday we might have the cure for a disease that killed many people, and to me this is a research that needs to keep going.

9/1/2010

Theadora M.
Nimitz , Irving, TX
What about those kids that would benefit with that young lives that deserve to get better. I would take chances If the embryonic stem cell reasearch works and would cure thousands of lives. If God didnt want that, he wouldn't have gave us the knowledge to do all these kinds of research. I am all against abortion, they shouldn't kill innocent people or bebies for scientific porposes. Scientist can recieve stem cells from adults without them being harmed. I think the judge has some good statements, but i believe its wrong to kill a person.

8/31/2010

Lancelot
Nimitz, Irving/TX
The judge ruled incorrectly in this case, even though he was following the law. I am perfectly comfortable with the idea of my family's money supporting ESC research. I state these two opinions on the basis of a saying that goes “Sacrifice few for the lives of many.” This common act is seen endlessly throughout the Bible where Jesus is sacrificed for the forgiveness of man's sins, and in war where one soldier throws his/herself onto a grenade to save those nearby, to name a few examples. Even though it seems heartless and immoral to destroy the life of an unborn embryo for this research, would you give into a simple human proclivity of “Better it, than me,” when you see your mother, father, sister, brother, grandmother, grandfather, etc. lying on the operation table, knowing that the only way they can survive is if there had been more research for the stem cells? Death is inevitable, and people are born everyday, ESC or no ESC, so why not give the scientists the funding for what will give results now, as well as push the scientists to try to work on adult stem cells as well, in accord with each other, so that there is more understanding of the final product that can be conveyed into the manipulation of the embryonic starter cells?

8/31/2010

Jose
Nimitz, Irving, TX
I don't feel right that embryonic stem cell research is the right thing to do by killing people just for scientific purposes. Everybody matters, weather or not its a small or big person. Only God can take people's lives. So why kill babies when they are the future, scientist can receive the same information from a grown adult. Everything happens for a reason. There is an opportunity that scientist can receive stem cells from adults without being baneful. For situations like this, I always have my strong believes coming from God, and it says on the Ten Commandments that you shall not kill. There are other options and ways to find a cure without killing anybody.

8/31/2010

Monica A.
Nimitz High School, Irving, TX
Stem Cell Research in my opinion is a benefit to human life already on earth. Embryos aren't just child sacrifices for other human beings, they are the possibility of a new and improved life. Stem Cells can save a life and if anything they are cherished for the good that they can be used for. The judge was doing his job in rejecting the funding for stem cell research, but what is the harm in trying to save lives all over the world? If there was a possible cure for Parkinson's or any other disease then the world should embrace the possibilities.

8/31/2010

Ciara
Nimitz HS, Irving, Texas
I am not against the idea of stem cell research, nor am I upset about my family's tax dollars going to the government for that purpose. I am definitely Pro-Life, but I know it's realistic that people are going to get abortions. With this being said, at least the government is going to put these embryos to good use, and maybe that unborn child has a purpose, maybe that unborn child's purpose is to give up his/her life for the good of the people. Just one embryo could make a difference and save millions of lives. I am willing to cope with stem cell research for the purpose of a cure for something. I want to meet my great-grandchildren, and stem cell research may help me in a way, medically, that will make this possible. I think that judge should have not overturned Obama's rule and let us pay for stem cell research. When that judge gets a horrible disease one day, he will regret his decision, because stem cell research could have saved his life. :)

8/31/2010

Parker H.
Nimitz, Irving, Tx
Constitutionally, the judge ruled correctly- because a judicial precedent had already been set, he was forced to follow it. In terms of the good of the people however, he went about his decision all wrong. Without ESC research, potentially fatal diseases that effect millions of people nationally and worldwide will stay that way. Until stem cell research is made legal, cures will not be found at the rate they could, and probably should, be. If a change is made, i'm sure my family would give money to fund it- it could potentially save countless numbers of lives- but as of now, it looks like that change is pretty far in the future.

8/31/2010

Quintin
Nimitz, Irving, TX
The judge was right to override the president (it's the law) but I still think that embryonic research is a good idea with many good pay-offs. While there are other ways of doing this research, ESC is the most efficient but can only progress rapidly with funding. I respect the people who agree with abortion or other pre-birth deaths and I respect those who don't but the fact is that it's still allowed in some places so what if, when a parent decided to abort their child, they agreed to allow their stem cells to donated to ESC research? Once a person has decided to have the abortion maybe this way something good can come out of it. If the parent was willing to donate and would abort anyways, then the government should be willing to fund ESC research with those stem cells.

8/31/2010

Mary S.
Nimitz High School, Irving
I'm all for stem cell research, as long as it doesn't involve destroying embryos. Stem cells can be acquired from umbilical cords, and that doesn't require destruction of any living thing. Harvesting stem cells from embryos crosses the line concerning abortion, and that is also a very touchy subject. I believe that if substantial research is given that shows positive effects stem cells have on different diseases, the researchers could be allowed to move forward. But until this is proven, destroying a life for the sake of research is not okay.

8/31/2010

Jordan
Nimitz, Irving, TX
As a Christian, I am against Stem Cell Research, like Mr. Stoddart, I am not against the research. I feel Stem Cell Research could be very useful in finding the cures to diseases, however I am against the means that current protocol requires. Taking an embryo and destroying it, destroying life is morally wrong to me. Stem Cell Research, though it has many benefits, is basically the same as an abortion. Human life is being destroyed and according to my religion, God created all things, and killing one of God's creations is a sin against man. In order for the government to fund stem cell research, the government must agree that it is legal to take life away from a human being. And, once this is approved, many more questions will arise about legalizing abortion, assisted suicide, and many other forms of taking life that are controversies right now left to the state governments, instead of the federal government.

8/31/2010

Jessica A
Nimitz High School, Irving, TX
Does the end justify the means? According to most scientists, embryonic stem cell research can lead to breakthroughs in treating Parkinson's and spinal cord injuries thus saving a lot of people's lives; however, most pro-life groups argue that these scientists are destroying human lives, ignoring moral objections in order to get their research completed. In a time of war, soldiers give up their lives in order to protect the citizens of their country, and though most pro-life groups would argue that embryos are not developed enough to make their own decisions and thus should be protected by the government, what is the point letting these embryos waste away in some lavatory instead of helping people recover from life altering conditions? The government should fund embryonic stem cell research because even though these embryos are being destroyed, they are giving up their lives in order for other people to live.

8/31/2010

Andres
Nimitz High School , Dallas, Tx
The judge behaved ethically by using judicial review in order to revoke the law, because the law violated the 1987 law against using destroyed embryos. Maybe if there is some loop hole such as using embryos that “died” on their own it may work. Yes, other people may say that stem cell research is necessary and the right thing to do in order to save lives, and they are, but these are just moral reasons. The judge may support stem cells, but he had to choose ethics over morals, by overturning President Obama's law because it violated the old 1987 Congressional law. We must outweigh who's life is more important. If the child was going to be born in a good life, and the stem cells would be used to save a very old person or something as different as an evil criminal, then wouldn't we want to save the baby? The same would apply vice versa.

8/31/2010

Donavon A K.
Nimitz High School, Irving, TX
I think the judge should have allowed for passing of the ESC research. The doctors obviously aren't taking these embryos from people who want to keep their children. If this research can help save the lives of people with terminal illnesses, then I’m all for it. If there was a way doctor’s could use adult stem cells, not harm anyone, and still get the same effective research done, then that option should be explored. At the same time, who’s willing to take care of all these babies that will come from the embryos? If people are willingly donating them to research, then allow for the research to be funded.

8/31/2010

Maggie S.
Nimitz, Irving, TX
I completely disagree with the judge's ruling, even though it was perfectly legal for him to do so. I don't have a problem with tax dollars funding stem cell research because I don't relate ESC to the taking of a life. These scientists don't ask women to abort their children, or purposely murder babies, they use stem cells from embryos that parents are planning to abort, or in other ways, but never intentionally "destroy a form of human life." Abortion is never going away, whether or not it is legal. If ESC can really help in treating "spinal cord injuries, Parkinson’s, and other life-threatening conditions," then I simply don't see why the government can't give it funding. Of course it would be wonderful if scientists could figure out a way to be as efficient with adult stem cells, mainly because that would be much easier and cause less controversy, but with embryonic stem cells just lying around, I don't think it's absolutely necessary.

8/30/2010

Duyphuc
Nimitz, Irving/TX
The government should fund stem cell research but to what point and in what form is yet to be decided. Sure, using embryonic stem cells are much easier but what are the moral and ethical costs of destroying a life. Surely, scientist will eventually find a way to adapt adult stem cells for research. Besides the moral and ethical questions, looking towards the U.S. Population level, the use of embryonic stem cells could be a major harm. Birth rates are decreasing in the U.S. And around the world. Would it really be better to save a life that is old and incapable of reproducing or save a life that can eventually grow up and prolong the survival of the human race. The government should fund stem cell research, but only for adult stem cells.

8/30/2010

Kiev
Nimitz High School, Irving, Texas
Personally I am not against the idea of stem cell research. I think it's an amazing idea that needs a little bit more support and understanding. People need to understand that stem cell researchers are not cruel people. These researchers simply want to help the world and save more lives. I do not believe the judge ruled correctly in denying stem cell researchers government funding. There should have been more issues to consider rather than say immediately “no this is killing a form of human life, we will not object to it.” Abortion is killing a form of human life, yet in the case of Roe v. Wade, the supreme court ruled in favor of Jane Roe and her want for an abortion. Women now have the right to privacy of whether or not they want an abortion. Women should also have the right to whether or not they want to give stem cell researchers the embryo of their unborn child. I would be comfortable to pay tax towards research that may one day save a life. Scientists should keep working with adult stem cells, but to say that it will be their only option to work with would be extending the hope for a cure.

8/30/2010

Chanh
Nimitz, Irving, TX
I don't think that the judge's rule was the right thing to do. That is because the president is a form of high power and he issued an executive order that should not be defied. I personally think that stem cell research is okay. I think that its just the circle of life and that eventually everyone's life will end. Nothing in this world is free, I believe in equivalent exchange and you have to give something to receive something else in return. I think that if it is okay to use adult stem cells for research then why can't embryos be used? If it is the problem of moral and destroying a human life form, then isn't adult stem cell research just as bad? In the end when it comes down to it, everyone is different and everyone is entitled the their own opinions. This and many other issues regarding morality and other beliefs will never be answered.

8/29/2010

Cindy G
Nimitz, Irving
I am all for finding a cure for diseases, but I believe there must be another way of going about this were destroying human embryos does not have to be involved. Of course, I do think that Judge Royce C. Lamberth did the right thing because the idea of destroying human life disturbs me. I approve with my family's taxes being used for medial research, but not if the research includes destroying life. If scientist can obtain adult stem cells I think they should find a way to work with that since they are not harming the adult or an unborn baby.

8/28/2010

Amber
Nimitz High School, Irving, TX
The judge is wrong; the studies need the funding. Taking embryonic stem cells is necessary in order to provide substantial research that cannot be performed on adult stem cells. The younger, the better, the more beneficial, in this case. Ladies are already having abortions, therefore, rather than disposing of the embryos, scientists can use the unwanted embryos for disease research, and everyone's happy. Of course not. Either way, there is still an early form of life that is no longer living, and pro-life supporters complain and object. We have been given resources in all shapes, sizes, and forms. We have lots of things left to discover, so it is our duty and our mission to discover those things. Stem cell research is one of those things, and the method may be despised and deemed hateful, but sometimes drastic measures must be taken in order to have needed, important, and beneficial results later in life. Unwanted aborted embryos are better seen in labs than the trash. Sad, but true.

8/28/2010

Jovan G
Nimitz, Irving,Tx
In my opinion, the judge did make the right decision. I don't support the idea of us killing embryos to be able to find cures for other diseases. I understand all the benefits we can get out of this, but I just don't think its worth it, specially since there's a law that prevents us from doing so. I don't think family tax payers should be the ones funding this because I'm sure there are a lot of families who don't support embryonic stem cell research. I think scientists should definitely try and figure out a way of working with adult stem cells before they resort to working with embryonic cells from embryos.

8/27/2010

Destani
Nimitz, Irving, TX
The judge ruled incorrectly when he stopped federal funding of ESC research. I know a family friend with Parkinson’s disease, and I have seen both the financial and day-to-day struggles this disease puts on their family. If the funding of research to find a breakthrough for his disease and to help others like him is an option, why or how could anyone object to that? Yes, it is wrong to hurt or harm an embryo, but I feel that if that if the project uses previously obtained embryonic stem cells, it should be eligible for federal funding. Another way to look at it is that though some people are upset because a human embryo could be hurt during the research, what about the child living with Parkinson’s disease? Isn't his life being destroyed as well? Because of this, we must continue to strive for new, inventive ways to obtain these stem cells, which must require our tax dollars for federal funding.

8/27/2010

Jena
Nimitz High School, Irving, TX
The judge definitely made a right decision in his ruling. Especially since there was already a law preventing stem cell research in embryos. I would not be comfortable knowing that my tax dollars are going towards killing innocent embryos so that they could cure diseases. Yes, the cause is very good in that they are trying to find a way to cure Parkinson's and other diseases, but killing innocent lives, especially whenever they don't have a say in whether they want to be killed or not, is not the way to go about it. Finding a way to research through adult stem cells would prove to be useful, especially since adults get these diseases sooner than an embryo. Another thing I think they could do is use the embryos from miscarriages and abortions (if they can) to do their research. Unless they can't do research from these embryos because their stem cells are inept, then that would be a good thing to try out and use for their research.

8/27/2010

Uyen V.
Nimitz, Irving, TX
On the issue of allowing embryo stem cell researching to be passed, just makes me put a lot of thought into it. I find everything that is living, valuable. If this stem cell research requires to take out a life, a living thing, just to save one's spinal cord problems, then I believe it is within the person's understanding to know that one's life was destroyed to help that person treat his/her spine problems or other deadly diseases. And if the person has no problem with that, then let them be. If it were me, I would allow the living organism to continue to grow and see the world, rather then use it to give me more time to live throughout life. I hate to see one's life be thrown away to save another. I guess that is just how life really is. I must be gone for one to have a life.

8/26/2010

Giselle
Nimitz, Irving
Of course there is always two sides to a topic, in my personal opinion I think the judge did the right thing by stopping federal funding for ESC research. If it comes down to killing an unborn baby who hasn't even seen the light of day then I agree with the judge. I am not comfortable with the fact that our tax dollars goes to research for stem cells. I am all finding a cure and saving millions of lives, but it should be done another way. Maybe scientists should try a similar but different approach, I don't know if adult stem cells are what scientists want but you never know how its going to work out unless you try it.

8/26/2010

Lucy V.
Nimitz High School, Irving, TX
Even though harvesting stem cells kills embryos, the research that can be done using the cells benefits not just the current generation, but the future generations as well. It can revolutionize medicine as we know it. It is better, I think, to kill an unfeeling, ignorant embryo than to kill a living, feeling person who can be cure with the information and techniques that the research can find and offer. Until there is a sufficient and efficient way to use the adult stem cells without any negative side-effects, I think the researchers can continue to use the stem cells from the embryos. I rather pay extra tax money to the research to save a person’s life than to let the embryo has the potential to develop into a criminal.

8/26/2010

Mackenzie D
Nimitz High School, Irving, Tx
I feel just as Ron Stoddart, director of Nightlight Christian Adoptions, does. I agree that stem cell research is a beacon of opportunity but I do not feel that embryos should be destroyed to obtain this beacon. A person is a person no matter how big or how small, as long as the embryo was brought to life and is able to thrive it should not be killed. Getting destroyed for scientific purposes or not, I never will feel that it is right. There is an opportunity for scientist to receive stem cells from adults, without them being harmed, and I feel that this would be a smarter option. Why would you kill a future individual when you can receive almost the same information from a grown adult? That future individual could have grown up to be the next Thomas Edison, but no one would ever know. While this may seem silly I believe that everything has purpose and meaning. Although the research may go on to further someones life, the embryo never had a chance to further its own life.