Scott Klusendorf on Embryonic Stem Cell Research

The Case for Life: Equipping Christians to Engage the Culture, by Scott Klusendorf Crossway has a good interview with Scott Klusendorf on the subject of embryonic stem cell research. Scott is the author of the new book: The Case for Life: Equipping Christians to Engage the Culture. This is an important topic for Christians to study, especially during these times when government policy is working to change the laws in this area. Here are the first three questions and answers:

  1. What are stem cells and why are scientists eager to use them in treating disease? Stem cells are fast growing, unspecialized cells that can reproduce themselves and grow new organs for the body. All 210 different types of human tissue originate from these primitive cells. Because they have the potential to grow into almost any kind of tissue—including nerves, bones, and muscle, scientists believe that the introduction of healthy stem cells into a patient may restore lost function to damaged organs, especially the brain.
  2. Why is stem cell research focused, at least in part, on embryos? Human embryos have an abundant supply of stem cells which scientists are eager to harvest in hopes of treating Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, and other illnesses. The practice of securing these early cells is known as embryonic stem cell research (ESCR). The problem is that you must destroy the embryo to secure its stem cells.
  3. Does that mean Christians should oppose all stem cell research? Absolutely not. Pro-life advocates agree that we should save lives. We also support funding stem-cell research. But, we’re opposed to one kind of stem-cell research that requires destroying defenseless human embryos so that other humans may (allegedly) benefit. That’s immoral.

Be sure to visit Crossway for the rest of the interview.

Related posts:
    • Alternatives to Embyronic Stem Cell Research
    • They’re Going to Die Anyway


  1. John W says:

    I have not read nearly as much about this as I feel I should have. For a long time, I thought ESCR was the only option for stem cell research. If I remember correctly, there are other, albeit more complicated, ways to get stem cells; but the upshot is that no embryo must be destroyed.

    It seems that here is a case of pursuing one solution “only” because it is easier. It seems (again, “seems”) that the entire controversy could be averted by pursuing the “non embryo harming” path. Money appears to be the driver from the bits I have read and heard. ESCR is cheaper and faster, if I recall correctly — and it would be a crying shame if money is really the only significant factor here.

    Science for the sake of science is scary.
    Science performed because it is cheaper than another, “better” path is shameful.

  2. Ray Fowler says:

    John – Well-stated. I agree, money is a big part of it. Stay tuned for a post on the alternatives to embryonic stem cell research tomorrow.

Trackbacks / Pingbacks

  1. Alternatives to Embyronic Stem Cell Research at Ray Fowler .org
  2. They’re Going to Die Anyway at Ray Fowler .org

Leave a Reply