Stem cell research is a relatively new scientific advancement today. Stem cell research has many medical benefits. It can be used to help patients with various diseases such as cancer, Parkinson's disease, spinal cord injuries, yet it is 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 usefulness, embryonic stem cells are valued because of their ability to specialize in different cells of the body. Embryonic stem cell research is a hotly debated topic. This poses an ethical concern and calls into question our morality as human beings. The embryo is considered a potential future life, and destroying it for research purposes is considered immoral by many. There has always been a dilemma regarding this subject. What could be more moral: conducting medical research to develop ways 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 its definition, corresponds to “principles concerning the distinction between good and evil or good and bad behavior”. But is reality that simple? Can we really categorize scientific research into two opposing groups? I believe that embryonic stem cell research has a significant benefit to society and is therefore ethical. Research should be encouraged to provide more effective ways to improve health care. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not 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. This varies depending on the situation it was applied to. What makes something good or bad? It is difficult to understand the concept of morality when it is introduced into science. For example, in the scenario above, how do you determine which is the most ethical choice? Most people would be against embryo research because the idea of ​​killing potential life seems atrocious. But is it worse than letting hundreds of other people suffer from conditions that cost them their lives? It is very difficult to create a balance between morality and scientific progress. In a 2000 BBC News report, viewers were shown tubes containing frozen embryonic cells. The reporter said: “Each of these tubes contains frozen human embryos. . . For some, they constitute the first stage of human life in which we intervene at our own risk. For others, they are small clumps of cells that could offer hope to thousands of people living with a devastating disease. This raised one of the most controversial questions in stem cell research: "Is it acceptable to kill an unborn child in order to save the life of a sick person?" The benefits of this research are in stark contrast to the moral aspect in question, as research on one "potential life" can be used for thousands of livesreal, which should be the obvious practical choice. Steven Pinker, professor in the psychology department at Harvard. University, in his writings, compares the very famous Mother Teresa and Bill Gates on their morality. He mentions how Mother Teresa's work among the poor "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, for his part, "was decapitated in effigy on 'I Hate Gates' websites and hit with a pie in the face." This is the immediate response we have for these people, but is it reality? When you think about it more, it's easy to understand that our perception may not be accurate. “Gates…determined that he could alleviate the greatest misery by fighting daily scourges in the developing world like malaria, diarrhea and parasites. Mother Teresa, for her part, exalted the virtue of suffering and directed her well-funded missions accordingly: Their sick clients were offered lots of 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 present an idea without having complete information about it. Stem cell research suffers from this same concept, in that one's perspective is biased based on how little one knows about the subject. 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 can bring us, we prioritize what we claim to be "potential life" over many other real lives. This is not a moral choice; we are the ones who let our emotions get the better of us. The logical decision would be to continue this research and allow it to have a positive impact on society. Religious beliefs may also be critical to acceptance of this relatively new research technology. So what role does religion play in the sustainability of stem cell research? Each of us grew up with beliefs that shape our understanding and acceptance of how the world works. Religion is the major basis of our morality, so it is important to consider how the embryo is viewed by different religions. An article from the Department of Science and Technology Studies, Faculty of Science, University of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur 50603, Malaysia presents studies carried out to analyze the ethical positions on the use of "research embryos" of some of the major religions of the world (Islam). , Buddhism, Hinduism and Catholicism). The test results were quite preferential, with most of them favoring prioritizing 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 potentially life-saving research has been accepted. Islamic deliberations also move in this direction. The research also shows Catholicism's resistance to embryonic stem cell research. The Pontifical Academy of Life published the "Declaration on the Production and Scientific and Therapeutic Use of Human Embryonic Stem Cells" in 2000, including a Catholic view on the morality of ESCR, asserting that "the human embryo from from the moment of union"The sperm and the egg constitute a well-defined identity... and therefore cannot be considered as a mass of cells." This further highlights the complexity of this topic, providing us with varied perspectives and opinions. One of the main reasons for the conflict is the misconceptions or complete lack of knowledge of the general non-scientific public on this topic. These embryos come from in vitro fertilization procedures. IVF can produce multiple fertilized eggs which, within a few days, develop into early-stage embryos. Some of them are implanted in women. The rest can be stored for future use or destroyed. It should be noted that embryos rejected for implantation are those used (with donor 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 develops the reality that "innocent people will die anyway and another innocent life can be saved by not letting it die." People are very quick to judge this use in stem cell research, but IVF is a very common procedure used by parents who cannot have children through natural means. How is it then that stem cell research is considered unethical and banned? Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist and professor of ethical leadership at New York University's Stern School of Business, says: "People generally do not engage in moral reasoning, but in moral rationalization: they start with the conclusion, spat out by an unconscious emotion, then rise to a plausible justification. » This suggests that it is not easy to explain one's moral point of view or one's reasoning in a situation, it is rather an intuition that one feels in the face of a particular situation that one experiences. The debate over the use of embryonic cells is presented 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 outweighed the moral dilemma of whether or not it was right to use these cells. On the other side of the debate are those who believe that the use of these cells is abusive to the embryo. The media has played a major role in the debate over the morality of using embryonic cells for research. For example, the Guardian, a British daily newspaper, published two articles written with the aim of showing both sides of the debate over the use of embryonic cells. An article titled "The case for it could stop Parkinson's in its tracks" was written by the Director of Policy and Research at the Parkinson's Society to show the benefits of using these cells in the development of a treatment for this disease. . The other article "Arguments Against, Cherish Life, Don't Consume It", written by Helen Watt, a researcher at the Catholic Church-funded Linacre Center for HealthCare Ethics, to demonstrate how unborn life is truly valuable and how cruel it would be 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. She writes: “Stem cell therapy does not necessarily involve cells from embryos. Using adult stem cells would in principle pose no ethical problem, for the simple reason that the adult would survive the extraction (Watt).” She continues in.