At issue in this analysis is the question of whether embryonic stem cells (ESCs) are a better medium than adult stem cells (ASCs) for scientific research leading ideally to major medical breakthroughs in terms of the prevention and treatment of disease, trauma, and even birth defects. Debate over this issue is quite intense and often emotionally charged (Korobkin & Munzer, 2007). It is all but impossible, according to Fischbach (2003), to consider this debate without reference to ethical concerns centered on whether or not scientific researchers will overtly or covertly obtain illegal ESCs by destroying embryos, or paying women to induce abortions. The questions of which type of stem cells are most likely to generate medical breakthroughs therefore include both methodological and ethical issues.
Those who favor the use of ASCs do so in the belief that they are both as viable in research as are ESCs and, perhaps most significantly, are less likely to be acquired by unethical means. Conversely, those favoring ESCs argue that these stem cells are preferable to ASCs in that they are more viable and flexible, less differentiated than ASCs and therefore able to be used more effectively in a variety of applications, and better suited to research because of this attribute (Fischbach, 2003). On balance, given a regulatory environment that prevents unethical use of or access to ESCs, most researchers believe that these stem cells are preferable from a scientific standpoint (Korobkin & Munzer (2007).
There are some 60 established stem cell lines that are approved for use in research (NIH, 2008). In making a case for expanding the now available stem cell lines obtained from embryonic tissue, Elfstrom argues (2001) that one should consider several reasons in making a decision in favor of this kind of research. First, one must consider the benefits that can be gained with regard to identifying the causes of many diseases and birt...