“Medical miracles do not happen simply by accident,” said President Barack Obama on March 9, following his decision to overturn the Bush administration’s policy restricting funding on embryonic stem cell research. Though Obama has faced some criticism from the religious community, his decision marks a long-awaited return to logic and science rather than religion and instinct in the White House. Bush’s policy was regressive and outdated; Obama’s new approach to stem cell research places science and logic ahead of emotion by acknowledging the tremendous advances that are possible with continued study. Controversial, embryonic stem cell research is a valuable medical avenue with the possibility of providing enormous medical benefit to a wide range of victims of disease and injury.

Because stem cells are undifferentiated and can develop into hundreds of different types of tissue, they possess the unique ability to repair extensive tissue and organ damage. Ailments that are currently considered untreatable can be helped or even cured with stem cells – these include degenerate diseases, genetic conditions, and extreme physical trauma. Furthermore, research on these cells has given new insight into the development of cells within the human body, helping to understand why, in some cases, these cells develop incorrectly. Finally, stem cells are useful for pharmaceutical and research companies as a way of testing new treatments without the use of live animal or human subjects. Despite the promise that stem cell research offers, a number of groups have raised concerns about the morality of a treatment that destroys potential human lives.

The controversy surrounding embryonic stem cell research is concerned with the question: is destroying a days-old blastocyst, made up of about a hundred undifferentiated cells, akin to destroying a human life? Since modern science cannot determine absolutely the beginning of human life, the debate rages: is it at birth, conception, or some murky point in between the two? Is a three-day old embryo “alive”? If so, is it wrong to destroy that life in order to improve or save hundreds, thousands, millions of other lives? Religious groups who believe that life begins at conception necessarily believe that the collection of cells — which, if placed in a womb, would naturally develop into a human baby — is a human life that cannot be discarded. But this argument ignores the basic facts of embryonic stem cells.

The embryonic cells used for research are typically leftovers from fertility clinic treatments that would otherwise be discarded. If not used for research, these embryos would be slated for destruction anyway; it makes more logical and scientific sense to use them for potentially life-saving research than to throw them away unused and unwanted or to leave them frozen forever in a vault. Proponents of embryonic stem cell research insist that no new embryos would be created solely for the purpose of research; research groups buy already-created blastocysts from companies that would otherwise destroy them. Therefore, the argument that stem cell research is tantamount to “murdering unborn humans” sets up a false dichotomy by wrongly implying that, were the embryos not being used for research, they would be growing up living happy lives with loving families. This is not the case; these embryos would be destroyed whether used in research or not.

Secondly, to think of embryonic stem cell research as “destroying” unborn babies is deliberately misleading. A days-old embryo is no more a complete human life than is a single skin cell. These tiny clusters of cells have yet to differentiate into any form of distinct tissue — this is what makes them so useful, as they can be nudged in any number of different directions to create new tissue to repair bodies that have been badly damaged by injury or disease.

Of course, embryos aren’t the only source of stem cells available for research; stem cells can also be collected from adult bone marrow or from the umbilical cords of newborns. These two alternate types of stem cell research have shown promise in the laboratory as treatments for a number of ailments, but they lack specific medical benefits that embryonic stem cells can provide. Firstly, embryonic stem cells are younger and more flexible than more developed cells, and can therefore be coaxed more easily into becoming a variety of different types of tissue from brain and spinal cord cells to retinal or liver cells. Secondly, embryonic stem cells do not pose the same immuno-incompatibility threats that transplanted adult stem cells pose — like a liver or lung transplant, a patient receiving adult stem cells may find that his body rejects the new, foreign addition rather than embracing it as new, lifesaving tissue.

When one considers the science, embryonic stem cell research is a beneficial tool that must be taken advantage of. It has incredible potential to heal the victims of diseases like Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s, as well as those who have suffered bodily or spinal injuries. Obama has acknowledged the concerns of religious groups, but has wisely followed logic and recognized the myriad of uses for this incredible path of scientific discovery.

Michelle Lamont is a Cavalier Daily Associate Editor. She can be reached at m.lamont@cavalierdaily.com.