What are some "cons" to stem cell research?

Question

I always hear about the "pros", what about the against?

Answer 1

I think you are probably hearing hte "pros" for theraputic use of stem cells, in which case there are cons -

For the use of embryonic stem cells, there are two important cons - First, the stem cells will not be a match to the patients cell markers and immunosupressants will be needed for life (as if it were a donor heart transplant).  Second, embryonic stem cells are notorious for forming tumors - in other words, its hard to control their growth.

With "adult" stem cells, the first problem is null, and I believe it is easier to control their growth and avoid tumors.  Second, the use of embryonic stem cells means that the entire developmental pathway must be elucidated; with adult stem cells, part of the work is done for you naturally.

The unique con to adult stem cell research is that they are limited in their differentiation potential, so it may be hard to form certain tissues if a stem cell cannot be found for them.

Answer 2

Depends on if you have an issue with the source of those cells. That's been the biggest part of the debate.

Cons to the research itself? Well, for one thing, it involves utilizing existing tissue that's at an earlier stage of development. As with any cell, you run the risk that the cells might not make it and might develop into tissue you aren't expecting.

Otherwise, there aren't any real cons to the research. There's the moral issue and then there's the fact that it's a quick fix. The cells are set up to develop into a certain type of tissue already. Instead of fixing the existing tissue (gene therapy has potential here), it's trying to replace the faulty tissue with other tissue. It's a thin argument but you could say it's more of a patch than a real solution to a medical problem.

Answer 3

Honestly, I can't think of any "cons."

The potential is so astonishing that almost any knowledge gained from research is bound to be helpful.