We are independent & ad-supported. We may earn a commission for purchases made through our links.
Advertiser Disclosure
Our website is an independent, advertising-supported platform. We provide our content free of charge to our readers, and to keep it that way, we rely on revenue generated through advertisements and affiliate partnerships. This means that when you click on certain links on our site and make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn more.
How We Make Money
We sustain our operations through affiliate commissions and advertising. If you click on an affiliate link and make a purchase, we may receive a commission from the merchant at no additional cost to you. We also display advertisements on our website, which help generate revenue to support our work and keep our content free for readers. Our editorial team operates independently of our advertising and affiliate partnerships to ensure that our content remains unbiased and focused on providing you with the best information and recommendations based on thorough research and honest evaluations. To remain transparent, we’ve provided a list of our current affiliate partners here.

What is the Controversy over Stem Cell Research?

Michael Pollick
Updated Mar 03, 2024
Our promise to you
The Health Board is dedicated to creating trustworthy, high-quality content that always prioritizes transparency, integrity, and inclusivity above all else. Our ensure that our content creation and review process includes rigorous fact-checking, evidence-based, and continual updates to ensure accuracy and reliability.

Our Promise to you

Founded in 2002, our company has been a trusted resource for readers seeking informative and engaging content. Our dedication to quality remains unwavering—and will never change. We follow a strict editorial policy, ensuring that our content is authored by highly qualified professionals and edited by subject matter experts. This guarantees that everything we publish is objective, accurate, and trustworthy.

Over the years, we've refined our approach to cover a wide range of topics, providing readers with reliable and practical advice to enhance their knowledge and skills. That's why millions of readers turn to us each year. Join us in celebrating the joy of learning, guided by standards you can trust.

Editorial Standards

At The Health Board, we are committed to creating content that you can trust. Our editorial process is designed to ensure that every piece of content we publish is accurate, reliable, and informative.

Our team of experienced writers and editors follows a strict set of guidelines to ensure the highest quality content. We conduct thorough research, fact-check all information, and rely on credible sources to back up our claims. Our content is reviewed by subject-matter experts to ensure accuracy and clarity.

We believe in transparency and maintain editorial independence from our advertisers. Our team does not receive direct compensation from advertisers, allowing us to create unbiased content that prioritizes your interests.

The controversy over stem cell research in the US is not so much about the research or methodology itself, but more about federal funding of a program with significant moral and ethical issues attached to it. Private funding is available, and researchers are able to perform many of their experiments. Because federal funding can be substantial for projects of this scope, however, the uncertainty about funding can have a detrimental effect on the future of such research.

Broadly speaking, the controversy comes from the nature of the stem cells themselves. Stem cells are essentially like chemistry labs waiting for an order to create a specific type of cell. An eye cell has a different set of coding and chemicals than a muscle cell or a blood cell. Because these stem cells are such blank slates, they can be artificially manipulated into becoming almost any type of cell needed to replace defective or missing tissue. Research has shown that these unfinished cells might be useful for treating the underlying cause of many neuromuscular and systemic conditions such as Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, and muscular dystrophy.

One of the controversies over stem cell research arises from the preferred source of these malleable stem cells. A human embryo contains the highest level of viable stem cells, since many of them have not been "ordered" to form specific structures in the body yet. Harvesting enough embryonic stem cells for research and treatment purposes means the destruction of human embryos, although they are usually obtained through natural miscarriages or voluntary donations of aborted fetuses. Donors are not compensated financially, nor are they encouraged to become pregnant for the expressed purpose of research.

Stem cells can also be harvested from umbilical cords and other tissues expelled during the birthing process, although these tissues may not contain as many viable cells as embryos. Adults also have a small amount available for research purposes, but the lack of federal funding has hampered many of the researchers' studies in that area. When federal funding was cut off, researchers were only allowed to use embryonic stem cell lines which existed at the time. They cannot harvest new lines of stem cells from human embryos.

The controversy also centers around the moral and ethical issues of using human embryos as sources of medical research or treatment. Many religious groups believe that life begins at conception, so the killing of embryos would be the moral equivalent of murdering a child. Ethically, the possibility that embryos might be created or donated strictly for medicinal purposes is also a consideration. An embryo's stem cells might be harvested and stored in case the parent develops a debilitating disease later in life, for instance.

Because of these ethical and moral issues, the administration of President George W. Bush maintained a policy of no federal funding for stem cell research involving embryonic material. In 2009, President Barack Obama reversed this decision, revoking Bush's executive order, and allowing research on embryonic stem cells by scientists who receive federal funding, as long as such research is "scientifically worthy" and performed within current laws.

Research on stem cells has also provided some insight into the nature and potential treatment of diabetes, which affects millions of people around the world. Other sources for stem cells beside human embryos may be discovered, or the use of human embryos may be monitored more stringently in upcoming projects.

The Health Board is dedicated to providing accurate and trustworthy information. We carefully select reputable sources and employ a rigorous fact-checking process to maintain the highest standards. To learn more about our commitment to accuracy, read our editorial process.
Michael Pollick
By Michael Pollick
As a frequent contributor to The Health Board, Michael Pollick uses his passion for research and writing to cover a wide range of topics. His curiosity drives him to study subjects in-depth, resulting in informative and engaging articles. Prior to becoming a professional writer, Michael honed his skills as an English tutor, poet, voice-over artist, and DJ.
Discussion Comments
By indemnifyme — On Sep 12, 2012

@strawCake - I agree with you. Plus, there are other places to get stem cells, as the article said. If scientists focused on umbilical cord stem cell research, I think it would be a lot more ethical to use Federal funds for it.

By strawCake — On Sep 12, 2012

I don't think Federal funding should pay for stem cell research. If private companies want to pay for it, that's fine. But I don't want my tax money going towards any kind of research that's being done with the remains of aborted fetuses.

I don't care how many people could be helped by stem cell research info, I just don't think doing this kind of research is ethical.

By JaneAir — On Sep 11, 2012

@Monika - I agree with you. It's not like the current stem cell research policy gives people an incentive to get an abortion or try to miscarry. As the article said, no one is paid for making that kind of donation. If the mother has a miscarriage or was going to have an abortion anyway, why not do something useful with the biological material that's left over?

By Monika — On Sep 10, 2012

I am really hoping the United States will eventually allow Federal funding for stem cell research again. I think that we're missing out on a lot of stem cell research potential by having such these laws in place.

As the article said, scientists can probably find treatments and/or cures for any number of diseases from stem cell research. But without funding, the research can only go so far!

I don't see anything unethical about using stem cells from miscarried or aborted fetuses, as long as the people who donate the material aren't paid for it in any way.

Michael Pollick
Michael Pollick
As a frequent contributor to The Health Board, Michael Pollick uses his passion for research and writing to cover a wide...
Learn more
The Health Board, in your inbox

Our latest articles, guides, and more, delivered daily.

The Health Board, in your inbox

Our latest articles, guides, and more, delivered daily.