Stem cell research represents a fairly new advance in science today. Stem cell research has many medical benefits. It can be used to assist patients suffering from various diseases such as tumors, Parkinson's disease, spinal cord injuries, yet it has been one of the most discussed topics in recent years. There are different types of stem cells used in research: adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells. Unlike adult stem cells which have limited use, embryonic stem cells are prized for their ability to specialize into different cells in the body. Embryonic stem cell research is a hotly debated topic. It poses an ethical concern and questions our morality as human beings. The embryo is seen as a potential future life and destroying it for research purposes is considered immoral by many. There has always been a dilemma regarding this topic. What is more moral: conducting medical research to develop solutions to end the suffering of many people? Or save a potential human life? It's a difficult choice. This further raises a very important question: what is morality? Morality according to his definition is “principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior”. But is reality that simple? Can we really classify scientific research into two contrasting groups? I believe that embryonic stem cell research offers a significant benefit to society and is therefore ethical. Research should be encouraged to provide more efficient ways to improve healthcare. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Morality cannot simply be broken down into a black and white idea. What most people don't understand is that morality is much more complex than that, especially when associated with the topic of scientific research. It varies depending on the situation in which it was applied. What makes something right or wrong? It is difficult to understand the concept of morality when it is introduced with science. For example, in the previous scenario, how do you determine which choice is the most ethical? Most people would be against embryo research as the thought of killing a potential life seems atrocious. But is it worse than allowing hundreds of other people to suffer in life-threatening conditions? It is very difficult to create a balance between morality and scientific progress. In a 2000 BBC News report, viewers were shown test tubes containing frozen embryo cells. The journalist stated: “Each of these tubes contains frozen human embryos. . . For some they represent the first phase of human life in which we interfere at our own risk. For others they are small groups of cells that could offer hope to thousands of people living with devastating diseases." This has brought to light one of the most controversial questions people ask about stem cell research: “Is it okay to take the life of an unborn child to save the life of someone who is sick?” The benefits of this research are greatly opposed to the moral aspect in question, since research on one "potential life" can be used for thousands of actual lives, which should be the most obvious practical choice. Steven Pinker, professor at the Department of Psychology at Harvard University, in his writings, compares the very famous Mother Teresa and Bill Gates on their morality. Mention how the work ofPro-poor Mother Teresa “was beatified by the Vatican, awarded the Nobel Peace Prize and ranked in an American poll as the most admired person of the 20th century,” while Gates, on the other hand, “has been beheaded in effigy on websites “I Hate Gates” and hit with a pie in the face.” This is the immediate response for these people, but is this the reality? If we think about it more deeply, it is easy to see that our perception may not be accurate. “Gates… decided he could alleviate most of the misery by fighting scourges in developing countries such as malaria, diarrhea and parasites every day. Mother Teresa, for her part, extolled the virtue of suffering and ran her well-funded missions accordingly: their ailing protectors were offered much prayer but harsh conditions, few painkillers and dangerously primitive medical care. This could completely change the way some of us look at these famous people. Pinker's writings give us insight into human nature. We are quick to judge and throw out an idea without having complete information about it. Stem cell research suffers from this same concept, as the perspective towards it is distorted based on the lack of knowledge one has on the topic. Steven's text reflects our understanding of morality and can be applied to scientific decisions. When we ridicule stem cell research even after knowing the benefits it offers us, we prioritize what we claim is the "potential life" over many more real lives. This is not a moral choice; we are the ones who allow our emotions to take control of ourselves. The logical decision would be to continue this research and allow it to have a positive impact on society. Religious beliefs may also be key to acceptance of this fairly new research technology. How does religion play a role in the resistance of stem cell research? Each of us is raised with beliefs that shape our understanding and acceptance of how the world works. Religion is the main basis of our morality, so it is important to consider how the embryo is viewed by various religions. A paper from the Department of Science and Technology Studies, Faculty of Science, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur 50603, Malaysia shows studies conducted to analyze the ethical positions on the use of "research embryos" of some of the world's largest religions (Islam , Buddhism, Hinduism and Catholicism). The test results were quite preferential and most of them tended to prioritize life over a five-day-old embryo. “Taking stock of the ethical views of Buddhist and Hindu leaders, it appears that the donation of leftover IVF embryos for research that could lead to saving lives has been accepted. Islamic deliberations also point in this direction." The research also shows Catholicism's resistance to embryonic stem cell research. The Pontifical Academy for Life published in 2000 the "Declaration on the production and scientific and therapeutic use of human embryonic stem cells", containing a Catholic vision on the morality of ESCR, stating that "the human embryo from the moment of union of sperm and egg constitute a well-defined identity… and therefore cannot be considered as a mass of cells.' This further highlights the complexity of this topic, giving us different views and opinions. One of the main reasons behind it of the conflict are the misconceptions or total lack of knowledge that the general non-scientific public has on this topiccome from in vitro fertilization procedures. IVF can produce multiple fertilized eggs that develop into early-stage embryos within a few days. Some of these are implanted in the woman. The remainder may be retained for future use or otherwise destroyed. It should be noted that embryos rejected for implantation are those used (with the donor's consent) for research. As mentioned in the article Myths and Misconceptions About Stem Cell Research, “The embryos used to create embryonic stem cell lines were already destined to be destroyed.” This deepens the reality that “the innocent will die anyway and another innocent life can be saved by not letting it die.” People are quick to judge this use in stem cell research, but IVF is a very common procedure used by parents who cannot have a child through natural means. How is it possible then that stem cell research is considered unethical and prohibited? Jonathan Haidt, social psychologist and professor of ethical leadership at New York University's Stern School of Business states that "people generally engage not in moral reasoning, but in moral rationalization: they start with the conclusion, emerged from an unconscious emotion, and then they work backwards to a plausible justification.” This suggests that it is not easy to explain one's moral point or reasoning in a situation, it is more of an intuition one feels towards a particular situation one experiences. The debate over the use of embryonic cells is portrayed in the media as a binary debate between two sides. On one side were those who believed that the benefits of using these cells completely outweigh the moral dilemma of whether or not it is right to use the cells. On the other side of the debate are those who believe that the use of these cells is an abuse of the embryo. The media has played an important role in the debate over the morality of using embryonic cells for research. For example, the British newspaper The Guardian published two articles written to show both sides of the debate on the use of embryonic cells. An article "Why this could stop Parkinson's in its tracks" was written by the Director of Policy and Research at the Parkinson's Disease Society to show the benefits of using these cells with the development of a treatment for this disease. The other article “The Argument Against: Loving Life, Not Consuming It,” written by Helen Watt, a researcher at the Catholic Church-funded Linacre Center for HealthCare Ethics, to demonstrate how precious an unborn life truly is and how it would be cruel to simply end it. Watt writes in his article that the real problem with using embryos in research is that extracting the cells destroys the embryo. He writes: “Stem cell therapy does not necessarily have to involve embryonic cells. The use of adult stem cells would not pose any ethical problem in principle, for the simple reason that the adult would survive the extraction (Watt).” He goes on to write about the fact that the embryo, viable or not, may one day become a living organism. The difference in extracting cells from an embryo and an adult is the fact that cells from an adult can be extracted from many organs, bone marrow and brain tissue without much damage, while stem cells from an embryo lead to destruction of the embryo because there is not enough tissue from which to extract the cells. Destruction of the embryo is seen as inhumane due to the potential for life that could result. The researchers.