When it comes to the topic of stem cell research, ignorance is not bliss.

Without knowledge, your ability to back up your statements is non-existent.

Stem cell research pinches at emotions whenever the topic enters conversation. The debate over what is ethical or unethical, when it comes to the research, is heated.

Knowledge and understanding of this topic are vital.

What sounds like common sense is surprisingly the source of all this controversy, Eau Claire biology professor Rudy Buiser said.

According to a 1999 embryo research report, the stem cell is extracted from a human embryo. These “master cells” are capable of evolving into every kind of tissue in the body and could be the keys to cures for conditions such as Parkinson’s disease and diabetes.

What I believe to be the cause of all this conflict is miscommunication between generations and plain old ignorance.

Stem cell research first began in the 1960s, and the research has made significant advances in 40 years.

How research was done in the 1980s is very different from how scientists isolate stem cells in the 21st century.

When stem cell research began in the 1960s, biologists used mice in their experiments. Through their study, they first discovered that “master cells” existing in the mice embryos could create different kinds of tissue.

In the 1970s, embryo research accelerated. Human embryos entered research labs, and the topic became a public issue.

After the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court case of Roe v. Wade, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services barred research on live fetuses, but allowed studies on dead fetuses or their tissues if permitted by state law.

In 1988, scientists at the University of Colorado performed the first fetal tissue transplant on a patient with Parkinson’s disease.

HHS brought back federal funding of fetal tissue transplant research.

The National Institutes of Health concluded in 1994 that public funds should be spent on embryo research, as long as the embryos in question were not created strictly for research purposes. Former President Bill Clinton announced soon after that his administration would forbid taxpayer funding for research with human embryos.

Following Clinton’s lead, Congress incorporated in its spending that funds NIH, forbidding taxpayer funding for research with human embryos, regardless of the source.

Do you see the pattern?

As the research continued and evolved, so did our views on the issue.

Scientists hit a breakthrough in November of 1998, when Dr. James Thomson of UW-Madison announced that he had isolated human embryonic stem cells for the first time.

These “master cells” were not isolated by using aborted fetuses. The times had changed. The research had changed.

Thomson used embryos donated to the research from couples that underwent in-vitro fertilization.

Every year, about 16,000 embryos are created for this process and a majority is deemed unsuitable for transplantation in mothers. The unsuitable embryos are stored in liquid nitrogen and are eventually destroyed.

As an person who believes strongly in the prohibition of abortion, I believe I also can stand strong in my support of stem cell research.

The ethical debate is passionate, but my point is this: Why not use embryos that cannot be used to create a child toward a cure for our world’s most devastating diseases?

On Oct. 3, NIH selected the WiCell Research Institute in Madison as the federal government’s first and only National Stem Cell Bank.

WiCell was awarded a $16 million grant over the next four years to continue research on stem cells.

This bank is a global breakthrough and it is in the state of Wisconsin. The research done in Madison will assist research done all over the world.

All human life must be protected, and I believe there is a significant difference between an embryo suspended in liquid nitrogen that will never be transplanted inside a womb and an unborn child who is already in the womb.

Stem cell research is a part of our lives. Make it your duty to support or reject a statement off of the facts.

The ignorant neighbor next to you is not the person who should define what you believe.

Kostick is a junior public relations major and graphics editor of The Spectator.