Embryonic Stem Cells Research: Views of Sherley and Sebelius

In the USA, a heated debate on whether the Government should continue funding researchers of human embryonic stem cells has been on progress for a long time. The use of human being’s embryonic stem cells has led to a difficult argument that entails public legal and moral disputes (Baynes, 2013).

Two great scientists, Sherley and Sebelius have been challenging the issue in court, with each taking a different side. Sherley supports the idea that the Government should stop funding the researchers of human embryonic stem cells, while Sebelius opposes the case. It is clear that using stem cells to save people’s lives in a good thing; it is a matter of procedures that are used to acquire results.

The ethical disputes that arise from researching the human embryonic stem cells are many, varying from abuse of embryo givers to medical adventure. The use and damage of embryos raise the first and most important issue, which is the embryo’s ethical status. The public notion has always invoked religion, since many believers have asserted to respond to the question of when human life starts.

All scientists arguing about the topic try to purify science from the artistic and denomination. Even though some will say that it is unethical to use embryos for medical research, the argument doe not focus on the right to life, but on the research that is based on the stem cell properties. As such, it is a great tool that can be used to save and treat people with numerous physical and mental problems.

As the stem cells can be “turned” into any cell in the body, they are quite valuable to medicine. The functions of cells become determined as the person grows, and the unique nature of stem cells allows to “program” any function into their encoded messages which will allow for cells to adjust to the needed purpose.

The human embryonic stem cell study depends on the obliteration of young infants, and it is possible that the study will lead to the destruction of more human embryos.

Each life is holy and worthy of defense under the USA laws. The Dickey-Wicker law clearly states that it forbids public financing for any study that causes the obliteration of human embryos (Greenhouse, 2010). But to support stem cell research, an alternative must be found. There is no need “to obliterate” growing human beings, as the procedures in the eradication of stem cells can be made non-harmful to the fetus.

The Government should not force the USA citizens to pay for researches that destroy human life, studies that do not produce any cures, and researches that break national laws, especially in the recent times when the Government is on a tight budget. However, to support stem cell research, there must be extensive data that proves the usefulness of such a medical procedure.

Recently, there has been positive evidence that shows how stem cells can be used for the benefit of humankind. This leads scientists to look for new ways of extracting cells without damaging the ongoing development of a human embryo.

The Legislature made a law to ensure that the USA citizens do not pay any more costly tax for unnecessary studies. But stem cell research has shown to be extremely useful, so it must be supported and developed further so that there is no loss of human life in any form. The law is comprehensible, and the USA Court should put this into consideration when ruling the case.

I support the notion that the USA Government should continue funding researchers of human embryonic stem cells. The main reason for the stance is that each time the Government gives finances to support human embryonic stem cell study, a human being gets a chance at recovery from a potentially deadly disease.

The number of handicapped people will be greatly lowered, as people will be able to keep their limbs, get properly working organs, and a stronger immune system. Funding the study will provide for greater resources to be used, as it was originally intended to be approved by the recent national law called the Dickey-Wicker Amendment (Ryan, 2011).

The embryonic stem cells cure might be expensive, but the continuation of research and the goal to save lives will be valued by lives saved. The president authorizing National Institute of Health, which is not compliant with the national law, he violated his legal limitations, and the legislature should clarify the law.

But it is oblivious that his intentions were targeted at the betterment of the human race and its preservation. The type of research that scientists perform using the human embryos continues to be argued about ethics, but a complete stop to such a promising opportunity should not be allowed.

The Supreme Court needs to consider the ethical and legal considerations discussed above when resolving the dispute. The public funding of the embryonic stem cell study should be put to the vote so that people can see both the positive and negative sides of the issue.


Baynes, T. (2013). U.S. high court won’t review federal embryonic stem cell funds. Reuters.

Greenhouse, L. (2010). Who Stands for Standing? The Newyork Times.

Ryan, O. (2011). Sherley v. Sebelius: Stem cells and the uneasy interplay between the federal bench and the lab bench. Duke law & technology review , 5-40.