Rapp

Extended Inquiry Project: Final Draft

Stem Cells: Growing Leaves of Change in Animal Testing

Tyler Rapp

Professor Malcolm Campbell

Writing 1103

December 1, 2015

!1

Rapp

!2

Imagine this: it is a sunny, perfect day. You are driving down the highwayand
suddenlyyou wreck! Not just any wreck, however, but a life-threatening wreck that sends you
immediately into the emergency roomeach breath possibly your last. Now, to make the story
even more enthralling: imagine being a womana pregnant woman. As you are being rushed to
the hospital, each moment is sacred as you hope that you and your baby make it out alive. In the
end, however, you both survive, perfectly okay and happy. But how can that be possible when
the brink of death was seconds away? The answer is simple: stem cells.
A couple of years ago, I heard this storyyes, a true storyand was bewildered.
Incidentally, the woman was saved by her baby. The baby sent stem cells from his/her own body
into the womans damaged areas in order to temporarily save her until more medical treatment
was completed. Ever since I heard this story, I have been utterly intrigued by stem cells in every
possible way. Essentially, stem cells are bodily cells that have the potential to develop into
many different cell types [and behave like an] internal repair system (Stem Cell Information).
Recently, a new area of stem cell research has emerged around the realm of animal
testing. According to the Humane Society International, ever since the origination of
experimentation, animalslike dogs, cats, mice, and many rodentshave been used as test
subjects for a variety of purposes (such as drug testing, surgical advancements, and more). In
todays society, stem cells are becoming more prevalent and desired in the field of science. As
such, there has been a slight gravitation towards the use of stem cells for toxicological testing
(the process of seeing how various chemicals react on an organism) as opposed to using animals.
This has occurred due to the moral roadblock that many people, including myself, have when
they hear about animal testing. I am immensely curious about the practicality and usefulness of

Rapp

!3

implementing stem cell testing in labs (instead of animals) and delving into the benefits and
drawbacks of doing so because, in my opinion, there is no just reason to sacrifice the lives of
animals when there is a harmless alternative available.
Furthermore, while stem cells are found in every human and are constantly at use
naturally, there have been vital applications that scientists have used stem cells for. For example,
cell-based therapies on bodily organs have been conducted to save patients from peculiar
conditions (Stem Cell Information). Due to their function, stem cells can be an endless
renewable source of cells and tissues [that could] treat diseases including macular degeneration,
spinal cord injury, stroke, burns, heart disease, diabetes, osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, and
more (Stem Cell Information). While many of these conditions can be restored via an organ or
tissue transplant, the availability of organs and tissues in so limited in comparison to the need.
Approximately 21 people pass away every day due to not being able to receive an organ or tissue
transplant (Facts and Myths). Additionally, according to the Centers for Disease Control, heart
diseasebeing the number one cause of death in the United States for both men and women
causes about 610,000 deaths each year. Therefore, it is interesting to note that stem cells are a
controversial topic when the number one killer in the United States has the potential to be cured
from stem cell research.
Moreover, there are two types of stem cells: embryonic and somatic. Embryonic stem
cells are derived from embryos via in vitro fertilization, the process of combining donated eggs
and sperm in a petri dish (Stem Cell Information). It is vital to understand that, as interestingly
noted by the National Institutes of Health, embryos are not removed from a womans body for
research purpose; that is, abortions are not taking place. On the contrary, somatic stem cells are

Rapp

!4

found in human beings that are born (stem cells found in the body of anyone walking down the
street or even a baby in a carriage). These stem cells, however, are rare in the human body are
often specified to a region in the bodywhich means that they are limited to the types of cells
that they can change into (Stem Cell Information). Thus, embryonic stem cells are much more
favorable among stem cell scientists as opposed to somatic stem cells. The reason for this lies
behind the fact that embryonic stem cells provide a lot more potential and can target essentially
any area in the human body. Additionally, embryonic stem cells can be endlessly grown in a lab
and supply enough resources for plenty of research; whereas deriving somatic stem cells is a
lengthy and complex endeavor that is unnecessary when embryonic stem cells are available and
creating them does not involve working on humans whatsoever.
In regards to animal testing, around 100 million animals are killed a yearin the United
States alonefor laboratory purposes (Collins). For organizations such as People for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals (PETA) and those in favor of animal rights, this is an astounding number
of animal deaths each year, which is why these types of groups are so in favor of stem cell
research. In the toxicological world, animals are the first thought to target when something new
is being tested. However, animals are not always the most reliable source when testing for human
drugs and substances. Christine Mummery, a Professor of Developmental Biology in the
Netherlands, stated that, [Stem cells] may save a lot of time and effort because [certain drugs]
affect animal cells but dont have an effect on human cells (qtd. in Knight). Stem cells have a
direct connection to humans because not only do they grow within each of us, they are the
foundation for the beginning of our lives. Thus, testing on stem cells is more similar to testing on
a humanwithout actually doing sothan testing on animals and their respective cells. As such,

Rapp

!5

the vital question arises of why are so many animals harmed and killed each year when the
testing done on them is not always accurate or useful in regards to human beingsespecially
when there appears to be a safe and better substitute? The answer? Controversy.
On the matter of stem cells and their purpose of replacing animal subjects, there are four
crucial stakeholders involved: stem cell scientists, religious groups, politicians, and animal
rights activists. Each of these groups and their different opinions spark the intense controversy
that resonates in the United States and the world. (It is important to note that each of the
viewpoints of these core groups discussed is based on the stereotypical standpoint of the average
person within the group.)
Stem cell scientists, to begin, are definitely for the application of stem cells in society;
also, they typically believe that federal funding should be allotted for it due to the difficulties
behind receiving private funding. In the opinion of stem cell scientists, the research that can be
done has remarkable potential that could lead to fantastic advancements in the scientific
community. The millions of people that die every year from possible stem cell curable conditions
is unfathomable in the eyes of these scientists; thus, they believe thatregardless of the ethical
concerns involving embryosthe benefits outweigh any negative side-effects.
Religious groups, on the other hand, are the most obvious opposers to stem cell research.
In 2007, a panel took place at Harvard University that integrated many religious figures and
leading scientists to discuss the matter of stem cell research (Powell). The Christian
representative stated that, according to most Christian denominations, life is created at the
moment of conception (when a sperm and egg come together to form a single unit). As such, a
human is created the moment the sperm enters the egg, and using this material for scientific

Rapp

!6

research would be considered killing a person. Other religious groups, however, disagree with
this notion that life is formed during the moment of unification between a sperm and egg. For
example, the Jewish figure at Harvard stated that an embryo officially becomes a human being
after 40 days of gestation (Powell). Similarly, the Muslim speaker at Harvard relayed that human
life is reached when the soul enters the developing baby sometime between 40 days and 120
days after conception (qtd. in Powell). Buddhists and Hindus, along with Christians, are against
the idea of embryonic stem cell research the most. Rebirth from a previous life is one significant
philosophy in Buddhism and Hinduism. As a result, embryonic stem cell research is essentially
analogous to killing a person because they believe that the embryonic stem cells hold the life of
someone who previously passed away (Manickavel). Nonetheless, while all of these religions
tend to be against embryonic stem cell research in some shape or form, somatic stem cell
research is typically deemed appropriate because no embryos are involved.
The United States government is a divided group on the matter of stem cell research due
to the split of ideologies in our political system. There are, for the most part, two sides politically
conservative and liberal. On the conservative side of the spectrum, religion (especially
Christianity) is an essential theme of their lives; therefore, conservatives are often against the
idea of embryonic stem cell research. Liberals, however, tend to be less religiously affiliated and
more religiously diverse; therefore, the idea of embryonic stem cell research is favored and seen
as necessary in our modern society. The United Statess two most recent presidents (Barack
Obama and George W. Bush), for example, were on opposite sides of the issue. President Obama
created a law on March 11, 2009, that allowed scientists to study stem cells without many
restrictions, as well as giving the scientists federal money (Obama). This law, coincidentally

Rapp

!7

enough, was made in response to a bill President Bush passed on August 9, 2001, which
outlawed stem cell research. Obama, who is a liberal, agrees with the act of embryonic stem cell
research because of its progressive nature to a better, healthier society.
Animal rights activists are the last prime stakeholder that is relevant to the matter of
animal testing and stem cells. PETA is the most well-known organization that represents animals
and their rights. In 2006, head members of PETA stated that they support embryonic stem cell
research because it is a clear alternative to animal testing. PETA actively agrees that stem cell
research has the potential to end the vast majority of animal testing (Milloy). In the eyes of
animal rights activists, there is no reason why embryonic stem cells cannot be used when their
production is in a petri dishwhich harms no one, including animals.
These four groups are essential in regards to the controversy of allowing embryonic stem
cell research or not in the United States. Figuring out the matter is an issue that thoroughly
involves each group. Can compromises be made? Is one sector right over another? Who decides
who is right and who is wrong? Due to the research conducted on the matter, embryonic stem
cell researchand its acceptanceappears to be the next step in society in order to not only save
more human lives but millions of animals as well. Animals are subjected to harsh chemicals,
probes and needles, and frightening scenes each day, while the mass public is merely apathetic
on the issue overall. Embryonic stem cells are cultured in a lab; therefore, abortions are not
taking place whatsoever, as many people tend to think when embryonic stem cell research is
referenced. Embryonic stem cells are simply the cells that have grown in a petri dish after a few
hours and days of growthnothing more.

Rapp

!8

However, according to scientists at the Society of Toxicology, there are somealthough

fewscientists out there that disagree with the advancement of stem cell research at such a
rampant pace. These individuals still acknowledge the fact that stem cells offer outstanding
potentials for the future, but believe that their basic function needs to be further understood
before moving forward. Additionally, the role and onset of human disease needs to be more
understood, according to this group (Kang). In the realm of toxicology, animal subjects are what
are currently primarily usedwhich some people find suffice for now until further research on
stem cells themselves are known. I find this counterargument intriguing, yet flawed. Stem cells
are a well-known entity in the scientific world that has been researched on for years and years.
While their full function and capabilities may not be completely known, there are not many
substances in the scientific community that are known to a tee. Science evolves everyday; as
such, I believe that the function and roles of stem cells could be further understood by taking it a
step further and applying them to other needs that will not only help people of this group who
wants to know more about stem cells, but patients and animals as well.
Embryonic stem cell research is a matter that directly affects me and those around me,
although it does not seem like it. Many of the people surrounding me have, or know people that
have, medical conditions that have the potential to be cured by further stem cell research.
Additionally, almost everyone has a pet that is the type of animal used every single day in a lab.
From here, I am very curious about the ins-and-outs of animal testing and what one could do to
start the gradual shift from animal testing to stem cells. This is an intricate matter that would
require much thought, effort, and policy-making that involves each of the stakeholder groups
previously discussed.

Rapp
Works Cited
About Animal Testing. Humane Society International. Humane Society International,
n.d. Web. 9 Nov. 2015.
Collins, Francis. Animal Experiments: Overview. People for the Ethical Treatment of
Animals. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, n.d. Web. 9 Nov. 2015.
Facts and Myths. American Transplant Foundation. American Transplant Foundation,
n.d. Web. 9 Nov. 2015.
Heart Disease Facts. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. United States
Department of Health and Human Services, n.d. Web. 9 Nov. 2015.
Kang, Kyung-Sun, and James E. Trosko. Stem Cells in Toxicology: Fundamental
Biology and Practical Considerations. Society of Toxicology: S270-S276. Web.
16 Dec. 2010.
Knight, Matthew. Scientist: Stem cells could end animal testing. CNN. CNN, 23 Dec.
2008. Web. 18 Oct. 2015.
Manickavel, Valavandan. On Stem Cell Research. Hinduism Today. Himalayan
Academy, 2004. Web. 9 Nov. 2015.
Milloy, Steven. PETA: Sacrifice Human, Not Animal Life for Medical Research. FOX
News. FOX News, 20 July 2006. Web. 9 Nov. 2015.
Obama, Barack. Removing Barriers to Responsible Scientific Research Involving
Human Stem Cells. United States Government Publishing Office. United States
Government Publishing Office, 9 Mar. 2009. Web. 9 Nov. 2015.

!9

Rapp
Powell, Alvin. Stem cells, through a religious lens. Harvard University Mag. Harvard
University, 22 Mar. 2007. Web. 19 Oct. 2015.
Stem Cell Information. National Institutes of Health. United States Department of
Health and Human Services, 31 Mar. 2015. Web. 18 Oct. 2015.

!10