You are on page 1of 19

The Analysis of Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Urke 1

The Analysis of the Social Issue of Embryonic Stem Cell Research


Should the President or Congress further expand federal funding to embryonic stem cell
research? Or should the President or Congress cut funding to embryonic stem cell research and
place restrictions on stem cell research?
Daniel Urke
Wayzata High School

The Analysis of Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Urke 2

Introduction
A car fishtailing wildly across a wet road. It slips, slams into a tree and crashed into a
telephone pole. Kris Boesen was left paralyzed from the neck down due to a traumatic injury to
his cervical spine (Aldrich, 2016). Fast forward six months later and Kris is able to feed himself,
use his cell phone and hug friends and family(Aldrich, 2016). Kris was the first patient in
California to receive an experimental treatment of 10 million embryonic stem cells called ASTOPC1 and has been given the chance, according to his doctors, that he may be able to walk
again (Aldrich, 2016). Kris was quoted as saying, if theres a chance for me to walk again, then
heck yeah! I want to do anything possible to do that (Aldrich, 2016). Clearly individuals
receiving these treatments are excited by the possibilities and initial results.
Despite these individual success stories, there are some realities of stem cell research that
must be taken into account including both the moral qualms and statistical evidence. First, some
think that the destruction of embryonic stem cells in order to research and use them for therapies
is equivalent to murder (Hodges). So many such that as of May of 2016, thrirty-two percent of
people think that embryonic stem cell research is morally wrong (Gallup). On top of these moral
considerations, statistics show that embryonic stem cell research and stem cell research in
general is expensive. In 2017 the National Institutes of Health is projected to spend 191 million
dollars on embryonic stem cell research and 1.5 billion dollars on stem cell research as a whole
(National Institutes of Health, 2016). This does not even include the money spent by individual
states funding said research. Clearly this money has a large opportunity cost, especially during
the next presidency which has promised that the government will spend less money and lower
taxes. On top of this, adult stem cells, cells taken from the patients bone marrow and fat tissue,
were used in treating over 70,000 patients throughout the world in 2015 (Success Rate in Use of

The Analysis of Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Urke 3

Adult Stem Cells staggering, 2015). They are a more proven medical technology and do not
have to deal with the moral issue of destroying a human embryo, possibly acting as an alternative
to embryonic stem cells (Success Rate in Use of Adult Stem Cells staggering, 2015).
Although they may have promising anecdotal evidence, embryonic stem cell research is not
necessarily supported statistically.
This discussion surrounding federal funding of embryonic stem cell research is centered
around the question of whether the President or Congress should further expand federal funding
to embryonic stem cell research because the government can then set the ethical guidelines for
embryonic stem cell research and it could lead to further medical technology breakthroughs that
could grow the market for biomedical technologies? Or should the President or Congress cut
funding to embryonic stem cell research and place restrictions on stem cell research in general
because harvesting embryonic stem cells requires killing embryos that could become humans and
it diverts federal research funding to unproven medical technology that could be invested in more
traditional and proven medical technology?
Background
Before examining possible public policy responses to embryonic stem cell research, first
one must understand what stem cells, specifically embryonic stem cells, are. Stem cells are any
cell that is unspecialized, meaning it can reproduce itself through cell division, and can be
induced into becoming specific cells such as tissue or organ cells. Embryonic stem cells are a
specific type of stem cells, contrasted to adult or somatic stem cells. Embryonic stem cells are
derived, as their name suggests, from embryos. They were first derived in 1981 from mouse
embryos and first derived from human embryos in 1998 through a process called in vitro
fertilization. Somatic stem cells on the other hand are taken from adults but are further along in

The Analysis of Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Urke 4

the cell development process, meaning that they can become less types of cells (National
Institutes of Health, 2016). Like all new medical technologies, the use of somatic stem cells
experienced hesitations about the ethics. However, these hesitations did not compare to the
backlash that embryonic stem cell researchers would receive from critics.
Embryonic stem cells, although only first introduced in 1981, have already become a
very important medical research for many. Today they are very relevant, as just seven years ago
President Obama lifted restrictions on embryonic stem cell research put in place by President
Bush eight years earlier (Center for American Progress, 2009). Embryonic stem cells today are
considered a social problem whereas somatic stem cells are not. This is because embryonic stem
cells require destroying human embryos which many people see as killing a potential life
(Hodges). However, some people see this cost as worth it in a utilitarian calculation because all
of the medical research possibilities of stem cells (Oneill, 2011). As there are strong emotions
surrounding the research of embryonic stem cells, they affect many people, and the conflicting
values of life and scientific progress are involved, embryonic stem cells can be considered a
social issue (Hansen, 2016e). The tipping point that caused many to identify this as a social issue
was when President Obama lifted restrictions on federal funding put in place by President Bush
(Center for American Progress, 2009). There are a number of stakeholders involved in this social
issue including the doctors who require stem cells for their research, religious groups who
oppose them on a moral basis and those individuals who could possibly be cured from
embryonic stem cell therapy (Center for American Progress, 2009). The basic economic effects
of embryonic stem cell research are the possibility to save America countless dollars in health
care that would be prevented by curing the diseases and in addition the actual research and
implementation which creates jobs (Oneill, 2011). The social effects on the stakeholders are that

The Analysis of Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Urke 5

some are concerned with the ethical implications, claiming that embryos are humans and so
destroying them is equivalent to murder (Hodges). Both sides can agree however that embryonic
stem cell research has great medical possibilities but that to harvest them requires the destruction
of what could possibly become a human. The basic subjective element of this social issue,
similar to abortion, is the definition of a human life (Hodges). Is an embryo a human being? Or is
it not a human being until it can function outside of its mother? The major values in tension here
are laws vs. ethics. Clearly there are ethical considerations to be observed about the creation of
stem cells but there are also laws increasing funding to embryonic stem cell research, essentially
government support. Thus, these factors combine to make embryonic stem cell research a social
issue.
Now that the difference between somatic and embryonic stem cells is know, and it is
understood to be a social problem, one can look at the most important facets of the public policy
debate surrounding stem cells. People feel very strongly about embryonic stem cell research;
according to Gallup Poll at one time as much as sixty-five percent of people believe stem cells to
be morally acceptable (2014). The main consideration is if the moral concerns surrounding
embryonic stem cells are outweighed by the large economic and medical promises. The primary
public policy agent involved for the past sixteen years has been the President of the United
States, with both Bush and Obama signing executive orders related to them (Center for American
Progress, 2009). However, Congress does have some power over this as they determine the
budget, which includes allocation of money to research funding and thus how much money funds
stem cell research (United States Constitution, 1787). There are a number of important private
players as well. Religious groups such as Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese, advocacy
groups such as Center for American Progress as well as scientists at private universities are all

The Analysis of Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Urke 6

affected by the decisions that the government makes. Typically socially conservative people and
those who are against abortion are against embryonic stem cell research and socially liberal
people are usually supportive of embryonic stem cell research. Now that the background of
embryonic stem cell research is understood, one can go in-depth on social and economic
analysis.
Social Analysis
Understanding what embryonic stem cells are and why they are a social problem will be
important in the analysis of the impact that they have on society. The sociological theory of
structural functionalism can be used to further understand embryonic stem cell researchs social
impacts and how to solve the problems they create using the social institution of government.
Other social institutions involved are religion and education. However, the social problem of
embryonic stem cells would not exist unless people accepted it as such, thus making embryonic
stem cells as a social issue an example of the labeling theory of symbolic interaction.
Embryonic stem cells can best be analyzed by the structural functionalism sociological
theory. The theory of structural functionalism would prescribe society as being in a state of
anomie, or normlessness, on the matter of embryonic stem cells (Hansen, 2016c). There are no
widespread social rules about how people should feel or society should react to embryonic stem
cells. People and organizations such as Father Mark Hodges believe that embryonic stem cell
research requires the killing of humans, in their embryonic form (n.d.), and others such as The
Center for American Progress believe that embryonic stem cells hold the possibility of life
saving cures (2009). Clearly these two sides are in disagreement on whether embryonic stem cell
should be used for research and cannot agree on norms.

The Analysis of Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Urke 7

This state of anomie is a result of the rapid social change around embryonic stem cells
and, as the social disorganization theory would predict, society is disrupted as a result and a
social problem is created (Hansen, 2016c). In 2001 President Bush restricted federal funding to
embryonic stem cell research citing moral concerns (Sanberg, 2005). Just eight years later in
2009 President Obama lifted these restrictions (Center for American Progress, 2009). This is
actually a very short time for public policy reversal and indicates how rapidly society has
changed concerning embryonic stem cells, creating a social problem.
However, the sociological theory of structural functionalism is not without solutions to
this social problem. Structural functionalism claims that the five main social institutions are
required to have a properly functioning society (Hansen, 2016c). While family and economy are
still important in the discussion of embryonic stem cell research, the most applicable social
institutions are religion, education and government. The governments relatively rapid shift in
public policy has created a state of anomie but that does not mean that it cannot not be beneficial
in solving the social issue. Now that embryonic stem cell research is less restricted the
government will be able to better control the ethical guidelines for the research and standardize
the confusing and contradicting state policies on embryonic stem cell research, eliminating
confusion between states over norms (Center for American Progress, 2009).
This control of ethical guidelines, and hence norms, may need to come from the
government because the two other important social institutions cannot agree on what these
ethical guidelines should be. The education institution very clearly believes that embryonic stem
cells hold such potential that some of the ethical conflicts can be ignored. Post-secondary schools
conduct scientific research using embryonic stem cells (Aldrich, 2016). For example, in
September of 2016 the University of Southern California (USC) was able to help a paralyzed

The Analysis of Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Urke 8

man regain use of his arms and hands (Aldrich, 2016). On the other hand, religious groups such
as the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese believe that embryonic stem cell research
requires the killing of humans, in their unborn embryonic form (Hodges). Clearly the religious
and educational institutions are teaching conflicting norms leading to social disorganization and
causing a social problem. Structural functionalism would recommend that the government, using
its position as a representative of what the people want, help standardize these norms (Hansen,
2016c). According to the Center for American Progress, this can happen now that the restrictions
on embryonic stem cell research have been lifted (2009).
This ability of the government to reflect the will of the people is also demonstrated in the
labeling theory of the symbolic interaction sociological theory. The labeling theory states that
social issues must be recognized by the population in order to be labeled as a social issue
(Hansen, 2016d). This is seen in embryonic stem cells as, according to Gallup Poll, from 2002 to
2016 more than 99 percent of the population believe that embryonic stem cells are a moral issue,
which is closely related to social issues (Gallup Poll, 2016).
As the labeling theory identifies embryonic stem cells as a social issue, there are a
number of arguments for and against embryonic stem cell research and they involve both
manifest and latent outcomes in the form of social costs and benefits. Social benefits of
embryonic stem cell research include that it will advance other stem cell research and that it will
make drug testing safer (Center for American Progress, 2009). These benefits are both manifest
outcomes but there is a connected latent outcome. As there was no government regulation of
embryonic stem cell research from 2001-2009, a large industry of fake embryonic stem cell
therapies has grown where people prey on the promises of embryonic stem cell research by
charging high rates for cures that do not work (Bowditch, 2014). This would argue for

The Analysis of Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Urke 9

embryonic stem cell regulation however there are also arguments against. Chiefly amongst the
social costs is the consideration shared by Father Mark Hodges and others that embryonic stem
cell research kills unborn humans (Hodges). The main problem with embryonic stem cell
research is that we cannot clearly define when life begins and so could be committing murder by
using embryos for research (Hodges). These social benefits and costs must be considered when
analyzing the social issue and when making a public policy recommendation.
In conclusion, the sociological analysis of embryonic stem cells is important in our
analysis of the social issue. Structural functionalisms social disorganization theory can shed
light on this social issue along with the labeling theory of symbolic interaction. The main social
institutions involved are government, religion and education with government playing a mediator
role between the other two. Also, there are clear social costs and benefits to embryonic stem cell
research but before these costs and benefits can be applied to a public policy recommendation,
the economic aspect of the social issue must be analyzed.
Economic Analysis
While a sociological analysis is important to fully understand the issue of stem cells, an
economic analysis of this issue is critical as well. Scarcity, the foundation of all economics, is
crucial to apply to embryonic stem cell research. The issue of embryonic stem cell research can
be seen, in part, as an example of market failure in the form of externalities, although there is
debate over this being a positive or negative externality. This market failure necessitates a
response from the government either in the form of subsidies for research or taxation and
restrictions. The economic costs and benefits of stem cell research also must be considered in
this economic analysis. The main economic benefit is the money saved on medical expenditures
and the main economic cost is the cost of the research.

The Analysis of Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Urke 10

To begin an economic analysis, scarcity must first be applied to the issue of embryonic
stem cells since it can be illuminating regarding why embryonic stem cells is a social issue.
Although a lot of debate surrounding stem cells relates to the social issues, there are also
economic considerations that are debated and central to these debates is the idea of scarcity. As
there is only a limited amount of funding for scientific research, the research that provides the
most benefit for the least cost must be funded (Hansen, 2016a). This limited funding influences
how much funding is reserved for embryonic stem cell research. Even further, the government in
the past has limited federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, based on societal pressures,
further demonstrating a scarcity for funding for the research, creating a conflict over whether
funding should be spent on embryonic stem cell research or other types of medical research
(Center for American Progress, 2009).
This issue of scarcity is only one of many points of analysis for the economic
considerations regarding embryonic stem cells. Another point to consider is the current market
failures related to the social issue. In the case of stem cells these come in the form of
externalities, both positive and negative. The positive externality related to this issue is the
benefits from the research. Embryonic stem cells have the possibility to cure or lessen the effects
of a number of major diseases such as heart disease, diabetes, Parkinsons, cancer and spinal
cord injuries (Murnaghan, 2016). Not only are many people suffering from diseases such as
these, but the prevention and curing of these diseases would save a lot of money spent on
medical insurance treating them. This means that the costs associated with the research to the
individual investors does not align with the benefits to them but are outweighed by the benefits
to society as a whole, creating a positive externality which contributes to the social issue
(Hansen, 2016b).

The Analysis of Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Urke 11

On the other side, there is also the negative externality of embryonic stem cell issues
which requires the killing of a human fetus in order to research and use them (Hodges). This is a
negative externality because the costs are not properly reflected on the people researching and
utilizing the embryonic stem cells (Hansen, 2016b). The overwhelming majority of the costs
associated with embryonic stem cells is this taking of the potential for human life which is not
experienced by those researching them (Hodges). Although a somewhat cold-hearted utilitarian
calculation of the lives lost and saved in the process of embryonic stem cell research may yield a
benefit, upon further analysis to many the costs to society as a whole may not be overcome by
this benefit. This negative externality is the crux of this social issue.
The government has a number of possible policy responses to these market failures. First,
to address the positive externality of the benefits of the research, the government could provide
funding for the research, increasing the benefits to the individuals considering researching them
and hopefully beginning to equalize them for the costs of the research (Center for American
Progress, 2009). The government is already doing this but there is still a positive externality so
there must be further funding or subsidies from the government (Center for American Progress,
2009). California alone is already providing three billion dollars to embryonic stem cell research
(Sanberg, 2005). This same article also argued that it is not only how much money is spent on
research but the quality of the research that matters (Sanberg, 2005). This means that the
government should encourage people to research embryonic stem cells more efficiently and
effectively, maybe providing incentives for outstanding work. To address the negative
externality is a little more challenging. First, it is not decided that the costs do outweigh the
benefits of embryonic stem cell research which is the center of the debate surrounding embryonic
stem cells. Also, there is not a decided course of action the government would take to address

The Analysis of Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Urke 12

this negative externality if it decides to (Hodges). A couple of options include taxing the research
or banning it altogether, the latter of which probably being the most likely. This was done by the
government in 2001 by George Bush when he restricted federal funding to them (Sanberg, 2005).
The last requisite part of an economic analysis of embryonic stem cells is an examination
of the economic costs and benefits of them. The clear manifest economic benefit is the number
of lives that would be saved and how this would save money that would no longer have to be
spent treating the symptoms of diseases possibly cured by embryonic stem cell research
(Murnaghan, 2016; Oneill, 2011). A somewhat more latent economic benefit is that the research
provides jobs for the people researching and involved with stem cell research which in California
alone amounts to over 3 billion dollars (Sanberg, 2005). The most obvious and manifest
economic cost of the research is the money that is spent researching embryonic stem cells, which
has other alternative uses such as research on other medical technology (National Institutes of
Health, 2016). Embryonic stem cell research does not have many economic costs outside of the
money for research which is why many see the issue as pitting economic benefits against social
costs (Lachmann, 2001).
Concluding, viewing the social issue of embryonic stem cell research from an economic
perspective can be illuminating. Scarcity is fundamental to understanding this analysis and the
social issue as a whole. There exists a market failure in the form of both a positive and a negative
externality which can be solved by the government either further subsidizing research or
restricting it. These ideas contribute to the economic costs and benefits of embryonic stem cell
research, both manifest and latent. To address these externalities a public policy must be put into
action.
Policy Recommendation

The Analysis of Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Urke 13

After both the social and economic analysis of the social issue of embryonic stem cell
research is completed it can be concluded that it would be most beneficial for the President or
Congress to expand federal funding of embryonic stem cell research while educating citizens on
the uses of embryonic stem cells and establishing new ethical and medical guidelines for the
research. A number of reasons support this conclusion, both economic and social.
The expansion of federal funding for embryonic stem cell research would address many
of the issues with stem cells. As said in the social analysis, federal funding of embryonic stem
cell research would make the testing of stem cell therapies safer and advance other stem cell
research (Center for American Progress, 2009). It would also reduce the demand for fake stem
cell therapies that promise to cure a disease but do not work (Bowditch, 2014). The last part of
this social analysis is that this policy recommendation would allow the government, as
representative of the people, to mediate the conflicting societal norms of two other social
institutions, religion and education through the establishment of ethical guidelines (Center for
American Progress, 2009). On the economic side, the expansion of embryonic stem cell research
would act as a subsidy to address the positive externality created by the health conditions
prevented or cured through stem cell therapies such as heart disease, diabetes, Parkinsons, and
spinal cord injuries (Murnaghan, 2016). There are a number of benefits due to the expansion of
federal funding for embryonic stem cell research that address many parts of the social issue of
embryonic stem cells.
The reconciliation of societal norms made possible by the expansion of federal funding
for embryonic stem cell research is closely connected to possible ways to alleviate some of the
negative effects of this policy. If the government were to expand funding it should be
accompanied by an increase in spending on education related to embryonic stem cells. This

The Analysis of Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Urke 14

education would allow the government to standardize the norms surrounding embryonic stem
cells and end the state of anomie with regards to them (Hansen, 2016c). Whether it be public
service announcements on the difference between embryonic stem cells and regular stem cells or
more publication about the successes of embryonic stem cells, increasing education would make
people more receptive to this research (Hansen, 2016c). Further studies into where life begins, or
how to use embryonic stem cells that are going to be destroyed anyways, may address the
negative externality of embryonic stem cell research mentioned in the economic analysis, that it
requires the destruction of a human embryo.
Since some of the negative effects of this policy could be mitigated, it is valid to consider
how to implement it. To put this policy into action would not take a lot of steps. It could be as
simple as President Bushs or President Obamas executive orders (Center for American
Progress, 2009). All that is required for this is an explanation of the executive order and for it to
be signed by the president (Koba, 2014). The other way that this policy could be implemented
would be passing a bill through Congress. This rather complicated process involves
subcommittee, committee and floor debate in both the House and the Senate and numerous
readings and revisions of the bill (Ushistory.org, 2016). Even if the bill passes both houses it
must also be signed by the President. Of these two options for policy implementation the
executive order takes far fewer steps although it is not likely to happen.
The expansion of federal funding for embryonic stem cells may be the optimal policy
recommendation, given the recent, somewhat unexpected, presidential and congressional election
results, the likelihood of this being achieved is low, at least in the next four years. The House of
Representatives and Senate will be controlled by the Republicans for at least the next two years.
The President, although he has been somewhat unconventional in his approach, was elected on

The Analysis of Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Urke 15

the Republican ticket and is more likely follow their policy stances than those of the Democrats.
Traditionally, the Republican party and many of its constituents has been opposed to federally
funding embryonic stem cell research (Republican Party Platform, 2016). This control of
Congress and the White House does not bode well for further funding embryonic stem cell
research for the next four years. Furthermore, President Elect Donald Trump also will be able to
appoint a Supreme Court Justice who will remain on the court until death or retirement, further
limiting the progress of embryonic stem cell research funding which could be struck down by the
Supreme Court.
After extensive consideration, it must be concluded that the government should expand
embryonic stem cell research. Either the President could do this through an executive order or
Congress could through legislation, however the executive order is simpler. The benefits of this
include the standardizing of ethical guidelines, saving lives with previously unavailable medical
treatments and making the stem cell industry safer as a whole. However unlikely this policy
recommendation is, one must still try to effect the change they wish to see.

The Analysis of Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Urke 16

References
Aldrich, M. (2016, September 7). Paralyzed man regains use of arms and hands after
experimental stem cell therapy at Keck Hospital of USC. USC Stem Cell. Retrieved from
http://stemcell.usc.edu/2016/09/07/paralyzed-man-regains-use-of-arms-and-hands-afterexpermental-stem-cell-therapy-at-keck-hospital-of-usc/
Arnold, E. (2015). Cloning embryos: Scientific milestone or moral offense? University Wire, ,
n.p. Retrieved from http://sks.sirs.com
Bowditch, P. (2014, 12). Stem cell promises give way to abuses. Australasian Science, 45.
Retrieved from http://sks.sirs.com
Center for American Progress. (2007, April 17). Embryonic Stem Cell Research by the Numbers.
Center for American Progress. Retrieved from
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/general/news/2007/04/17/2887/embryonicstem-cell-research-by-the-numbers/
Center for American Progress. (2009, March 9). Eight Reasons to Applaud Action on Stem
Cells. Center for American Progress. Retrieved from
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/general/news/2009/03/09/5745/eight-reasonsto-applud-action-on-stem-cells/
CNN Library. (2016, June 7). Stem Cell Fast Facts. CNN. Retrieved from
http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/05/health/stem-cells-fast-facts/
FoxNews.com. (2001, August 9). The Cases for and Against Stem Cell Research. Fox News.
Retrieved from http://www.foxnews.com/story/2001/08/09/cases-for-and-against-stemcell-research.html

The Analysis of Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Urke 17

Gallup Poll. (2003-2016). [Graph and table depicting moral acceptance of stem cell research].
Stem Cell Research. Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/poll/21676/stem-cellresearch.aspx
Genetic Science Learning Center. (2014, July 10) The Stem Cell Debate: Is it Over?. Retrieved
December 17, 2016, from http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/stemcells/scissues/
Hansen, A. (2016a). Basic Economic Principals. Personal Collection of A. Hansen, Wayzata
High School, Minnesota.
Hansen, A. (2016b). Market Failure. Personal Collection of A. Hansen, Wayzata High School,
Minnesota.
Hansen, A. (2016c). Structural Functionalism. Personal Collection of A. Hansen, Wayzata High
School, Minnesota.
Hansen, A. (2016d). Symbolic Interaction. Personal Collection of A. Hansen, Wayzata High
School, Minnesota.
Hansen, A. (2016e). The State of the World Today and Identifying Social Problems. Personal
Collection of A. Hansen, Wayzata High School, Minnesota.
Health Research Funding. (2014, December 14). 14 Noteworthy Embryonic Stem Cell Research
Facts and Statistics. Heatlh Research Funding.org. Retrieved from
http://healthresearchfunding.org/14-noteworthy-embryonic-stem-cell-research-factsstatistics/
Hodges, M. (n.d.). Destructive Embryonic Stem Cell Research. Antiochian Orthodox Christian
Archdiocese. Retrieved from http://www.antiochian.org/stem-cell-research

The Analysis of Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Urke 18

ISSCR. (2016). ISSCR Opposes the REGROW Act. International System for Stem Cell
Research. Retrieved from http://www.isscr.org/home/about-us/newspressreleases/2016/2016/09/15/isscr-opposes-the-regrow-act
Koba, M. (2014, January 28). Executive orders coming? Here's how they work. CNBC.
Retrieved from http://www.cnbc.com/2014/01/28/executive-orders-what-they-are-andhow-they-work.html
Lachmann, P. (2001). Stem cell researchwhy is it regarded as a threat?: An investigation of the
economic and ethical arguments made against research with human embryonic stem cells.
EMBO Reports, 2(3), 165168. http://doi.org/10.1093/embo-reports/kve053
Murnaghan, I. (2016, December 21). Major Diseases and Stem Cells. [Web Log Posting].
Retrieved from http://www.explorestemcells.co.uk/majordiseasesstemcells.html
National Institutes of Health. (2016). Stem Cell Information. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes
of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved from
http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics.htm
National Institutes of Health. (2016). Estimates of Funding for Various Research, Condition, and
Disease Categories (RCDC) [Table]. Retrieved from
https://report.nih.gov/categorical_spending.aspx
Oneill, S. (2011, November 28). The Economics of Stem Cell Research. The Madeleine Brand
Show. Retrieved from http://www.scpr.org/programs/madeleinebrand/2011/11/28/21535/the-economics-of-stem-cell-research/
Republican Party Platform of 2016
Sanberg, P. R. (2005, October 10). Stem cell research's reversal of fortune: why restricting
federal funding may have been good for embryonic stem cell research. The Scientist,

The Analysis of Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Urke 19

19(19), 12. Retrieved from


http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/suic/AcademicJournalsDetailsPage/AcademicJournalsDetails
Windw?disableHighlighting=true&displayGroupName=Journals&currPage=&scanId=&
query=&prdId=SUIC&search_within_results=&p=SUIC&mode=view&catId=&limiter=
&displayquery&displayGroups=&contentModules=&action=e&sortBy=&documentId=GALE%7
CA13787542&windowstate=normal&activityType=&failOverType=&commentary=true
&source=Bookark&u=mnkwayzatahs&jsid=41e4a1d216c9af7ac2ee12289c0658b7
Siegel, A. (2013, January 28). Ethics of Stem Cell Research. In Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/stem-cells/
Success Rate in Use of Adult Stem Cells staggering. (2015, July 14). America. Retrieved
from http://www.americamagazine.org/issue/success-rate-use-adult-stem-cells-staggering
T.A., J. (2016, 01/10). The stem cell debate: Should necessity trump ethics? Indian Express
Retrieved from http://sks.sirs.com
Ushistory.org. (2016). How a Bill Becomes a Law. Retrieved from
http://www.ushistory.org/gov/6e.asp

You might also like