When James Thomson of the University of Wisconsin and John Gearhardt of John Hopkins University succeeded in growing human embryonic stem cells in a laboratory in 1998, they opened up a whole world of controversy today known as the stem cell debate. The importance of embryonic stem cells for modern science and medicine is largely based on the fact that they are pluripotent. This means that they have the ability to form into any cell needed within the body; they can be encouraged to become skin cells, brain cells, etc. Organs could be grown in the laboratory and transplanted into patients, and these cells could be used to test new drugs, rather than on a live human subject. This technology, according to scientists, could advance the ability to cure any disease, illness or injury, but at what cost? Opponents of stem cell research believe that the practice of studying and culturing embryos is immoral, while supporters suggest that this technology is necessary for the advancement of medical research. In 2001, then-President George W. Bush quickly sided with those who believed the research was immoral. During his prime time speech, he advocated allowing only research on existing cell lines. Much of this aspect of the argument is based on the idea that human eggs are fertilized with sperm to create an embryo and then destroyed to collect stem cells within the blastocyst. Many religious and pro-life groups – including the Catholic Church, the Christian Medical Association, the Council on Family Bioethics, etc. – believe that life begins at conception and believe that this leads to the destruction of human life. They consider it the same as abortion, which they also oppose. A few years after the emergence of this controversy, in 2006, two bills were passed... middle of paper... the group recognizes the morality of intentional abortion by fertilizing eggs to study and destroy them. This belief was solidified when S.3504 passed with a unanimous vote of acceptance in the Senate. There are many pieces of the stem cell puzzle that have yet to be solved. Are we perhaps too hasty in pushing research on embryos to the detriment of research on adult stem cells? Is it ethical to kill a being classified in biological terms as a life form for the potential advancement of science? Is an embryo worthy of rights even if it cannot think, feel or communicate? Or do the positive aspects of embryonic stem cell research so far outweigh the negative aspects and is the sacrifice minimal? Opponents of embryo research explain that it is downright immoral, while supporters argue that this research is essential to our medical future. There may never be a right answer.