Stem cell research has become a dividing issue across the United States in the medical, scientific and political arenas, and Penn State is no exception.

Over the past few years, controversies regarding the ethics of harvesting embryonic stem cells -- and their potential ability to cure genetic diseases like Alzheimer's and Parkinson's, generate new organs or repair tissue damage -- have reached a fevered pitch.

Many Americans were first exposed to this controversy last year when the viability and moral challenges of stem cell research became a point of contest between both presidential candidates.

College Democrats President Megan Green explained why stem cells are such a dividing moral issue in the United States.

"It's very close to the abortion issue," she said. "The way stem cells are made is very controversial, and many believe that destroying an embryo is just like an abortion destroying a life."

The Penn State College Republicans did not return repeated messages for comment concerning this issue.

President Bush has remained firm on his original August 2001 mandate concerning advances in stem cell research.

Bush has restricted government funding to research using the limited number of cell lines already discovered. Only a small portion of those lines are currently available for use by researchers, and those available potentially could be contaminated by mouse feeder cells and may not be worthwhile for human-based biomedical research.

Along national political lines, the Democrats have sensing a rift in Republican thinking, the Democrats have latched on to this issue as a means to divide the Republican party, explained Jesse Ballenger, assistant professor of science, technology and society.

While many conservatives oppose creating any form of life and aborting it at an early stage, some want to pursue stem cell research as a means to prevent the anguish caused by certain genetic diseases, such as Alzheimer's, which claimed the life of former President Ronald Reagan in June, he said.

Regardless of the pros or cons to this research, Ballenger said that the amount of money and debate being committed to this type of research is misplaced.

"The amount of money we are spending on stem cell research could be spent on therapeutic approaches that we already know will save people," he said.

More than 43 million Americans do not have health insurance and have to make decisions every day on what health care they can afford, from parents skipping prenatal screenings to senior citizens splitting pills to stretch their prescriptions, Ballenger said.

"We can fix these problems already," he said. "We are not doing the basic health care things that can save people. I question the commitment to high-tech genetic cures when we already have capability to put other treatments in place."

However, many in the scientific community believe that the promise of the benefits of possible stem cell treatments merit the funding that is being given.

Traditionally, stem cells are harvested from human embryos days after conception, and after the cells are removed, the embryo is discarded.

Opponents of this research argue that using the embryos only for stem cells and then discarding them is as much taking the life of a human as an abortion.

Mitch Price, assistant professor of biology, said that other sources of stem cells should be considered to remove the question of terminating life with embryonic stem cells.

Few arguments about stem cells focus on scientific rationales, but instead on the moral and ethical implications of their harvest, Price said.

Price explained that few people realize the range of potential in stem cell function. The power of the stem cell is its ability to become many different cell types and the diversity of ways that they can be harvested, he said.

As an alternative to the conventional means, stem cells could be taken from a mother's umbilical cord or from unneeded embryos from a fertility clinic that would be discarded anyway, he said. This would create a use for material that would otherwise be wasted, while minimizing the debate over creating or destroying life.

Green said that while the way stem cells are harvested may be controversial, the amount of people dying from diseases that may be treatable by stem cells is more important.

Some officials are now calling for a ban on stem cell research in the United States, but a government ban on this type of research could be detrimental in the long run. If stem cells could be used to treat diseases affecting so many people, then this research should be explored, she said.

Last week, public interest groups in California brought a $3 billion lawsuit against the state. The groups say that the benefits of stem cell research are "hypothetical" and that the spending of government funds is a "problematic" waste in an already financially troubled state.

In November, voters in California approved state-regulated stem cell research spending.

Price said legislation that cuts funding or blocks stem cell research in the United States is extremely detrimental.

"If you cut budgets and restrict funding, we will get left behind," he said, "but I don't think that it would ever close down the investigative spirit of the scientific community."

If stem cell research is allowed to continue here in the United States, it could be quite some time before there are effective human stem cell treatments, Price said. Adding a politically sensitive issue like stem cells to the already long process of bringing a therapeutic remedy to the market can only prolong the wait further, he explained.

Although both sides are firm in their beliefs, Green said that a compromise could be worked out.

"In order for an agreement to be reached on this issue, we need to set certain limitations," she said. "Maybe only a certain number of stem cells would be used per year -- that way we wouldn't be going crazy harvesting stem cells, but there would still be enough for research."

Regardless of the argument over what constitutes human life, Ballenger worries that the possible benefits of stem cells may be overblown and that too many problems are being ignored in favor of this research.

"I would love to see intervention that gets people out of wheelchairs or cures their Alzheimer's, but we can't let emotional politics short-circuit health care priorities," he said. "But why aren't we meeting basic needs for every person and pursuing things that work? Health insurance improves people's health -- we need to get coverage to every person."

The Associated Press contributed to this report.