We live in exciting times, an era when parents may soon have the
ability to select the genetic composition of their offspring. Human
cloning is no longer a myth of film and print.

It is also a period in which debilitating illnesses such as
Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, diabetes and heart
disease–all of which compromise the quality of life and dignity of
people–could soon vanish.

Stem cell research is at the forefront of today’s scientific and
political debates.

According to information published by the National Institute of
Health, these cells have three main characteristics that make them
perfect candidates for further study. In short, stem cell research
should be legalized.

First, they are unspecialized, meaning they have not yet become
programmed for one specific function, like a nerve cell or a liver
cell. Second, they can be engineered for a determined role, such as
a skin cell or part of lung tissue. In addition to the treatment of
illnesses, the cells could be utilized to check newly developed
medications as well as congenital birth abnormalities. Lastly, they
can divide for very long periods of time.

The scope of current knowledge about stem cells does not extend
very far, since the inception of inquiry began in 1998. Certain
ethical questions do arise out of these seemingly endless
possibilities.

Many people feel that the way these cells are obtained is
morally unacceptable. Some research facilities gain their cells
from fertilization clinics with informed consent of the donating
party. These embryos are the result of in vitro fertilization and
do not reside in any human body. Others get theirs from clinics
where the embryos and fetuses would have been discarded (adult stem
cells have the potential for use in research; however, they exist
in much smaller quantities and may stay in their non-dividing phase
for an indefinite length of time. Additionally, their exit from
this stage may occur after injury or illness).

It seems reprehensible that a human fetus would be discarded in
the first place. Yet, the root of the controversy over the ethics
of stem cell research lies not in the same principles as that of
euthanasia or abortion.

In those cases, the birth or death of an individual is the
result of someone’s personal choice, whether one sees this as
neglect, irresponsibility or simply the right of every person.
Regardless of whether someone believes in a woman’s right to choose
or a child’s right to live, the underlying truth is that these
embryos would not be allowed to grow into functional beings.
Moreover, the debate over whether the fetuses and embryos should be
in the trash in the first place is not the issue at hand. The heart
of the discussion now lies in the course of action after said cells
are deemed waste.

Scientists worldwide have analyzed human cells in a variety of
ways; among them cancer cell lines, nervous tissue for neurological
disorders, and brain cells for insight into mental illness. These
fields of study have been supported. Several major research
institutions carried out the human genome project, genetic
engineering and even human cloning.

The argument that the forenamed work blurs the line between
valuing a human life and furthering science is valid; however, such
individuals who oppose stem cell research should look more closely
at existing projects which use human cells and synthetically
manufactured elements. Perhaps far more moral transgressions occur
in widely accepted laboratory practices.

Furthermore, by legalizing stem cell research, the black market
for underhanded work would diminish. Legitimate codes of conduct
and regulations, including the exact source and method of obtaining
the cells, the intended purpose, checks to ensure the stated and
the actual work are identical, and correct and respectful means of
handling and disposal, could be implemented.

The value and quality of life of mankind could vastly improve
through stem cell research. Indeed, the potential outcomes are
overwhelmingly positive. Similarly, this is not an issue of
sacrificing several innocent lives for the good of many–no?

This revolves around the idea of taking the products of a legal,
though not unanimously ethical practice, and turning what would be
permanently destroyed into the source of life for countless
innocent people.

Maryam Zia is a sophomore in the College of Arts &
Sciences.