In the 1975 Asilmolar Meeting fear of a Frankenstein like creature crawling out of a seedy lab led to a moratorium on recombinant DNA (DNA or human genetic molecules fabricated in a laboratory). Fear that is now widely recognized as excessive, but the consortium of scientists at the 1975 meeting did provide important guidelines for safe biotechnology, including some that apply to stem cell science today.
The NIH (National Institutes of Health) created some guidelines for stem cell research in 2009. They defined an embryonic stem cell and provided some parameters on how it can be used for research, including donation procedures. Recently the FDA approved the clinical application of umbilical cord blood therapies for some cancer and immune disorders. Researchers and clinicians alike have found the current guidelines from regulatory agencies to be somewhat unclear. For example, the FDA has never contested the use of bone marrow transplantation for nearly 6 decades, but has never formally approved them.– – Leading Harvard scientists in 2017 to call for better rules to guide research on embryoids (clusters of dividing pluripotent embryonic stem cells resembling an embryo). Scientists and clinicians are hoping to be a part of advancing bioengineering with reason versus fear, but as of yet, there is no clear path forward or consensus between the science, the clinicians (e.g. physicians applying the science to patients), and the regulatory agencies (such as the FDA).
The general public also looks at the topic of embryonic stem cells with considerable skepticism. Human embryonic stem cells are gathered from early-stage embryos, which are a group of cells that form when an egg is fertilized with sperm (in the present context this usually refers to an in-vitro fertilization clinic procedure). Since they are removed from human embryos, many issues have been raised regarding the ethics of embryonic stem cell research.
Accordingly, in 2010 a federal court banned the funding of stem cell research. A decision which was overturned a year later by a panel of appellate judges (Mears, 2011).
Some opponents of abortion do not support stem cell research because of the process involves discarding the embryos after obtaining the stem cells. They advocate for adult stem cell research as it does not involve embryo disposal.
Conversely, scientists observe that a ban on embryonic stem cell research would severely hamper the promise that bioengineering and regenerative medicine hold to cure some of the most deadly and disabling health conditions such as diabetes, cancer, spinal cord injuries and Parkinson’s disease. They submit that by sacrificing a few stem cells, hundreds of thousands of people worldwide could benefit. Moreover, in many instances the embryos are destined for disposal in the first place; predetermined by fertility clinics or hospitals.
For example, Dr. James Thomson, a scientist who isolated human embryonic stem cells in 1988, struggled with the same dilemma. After consulting ethicists he decided to continue his stem cell investigations, particularly because the embryos were from fertility clinics and would be disposed of anyway. Dr. Thomson reasoned that the potential benefits to humanity outweighed the risks.