https://www.cbsnews.com/news/after-...to-walk-and-dance-for-first-time-in-10-years/ Stem cell research and therapy has somewhat faded out of the public image recently with other controversies have emerged, but is likely to be back as advances continue to be made. For me, the biggest reason for going forward with stem cell research is that it has shown promise in CURING a number of ailments. Current healthcare costs in developed nations are skyrocketing in part because the industry has become increasingly about controlling the symptoms of diseases rather then curing them. Stem cell therapy in many cases offers promises of an outright cure. On the flipside, the specter of genetic manipulation is one that I am concerned about. As we move into this area, it is increasingly likely that we'll be able to "engineer" out many things we consider undesirable. While humans have demonstrated a long history of mastering their environment, we also have made many mistakes - and in particular when it comes to natural processes, many times when we thought we could achieve a certain outcome, we have actually brought about some other catastrophe inadvertently. Along the lines of antibiotic resistant superbugs, what would be the end result of stem cell research? Might it, for example, lead to 2 classes of people? Those who have eliminated certain issues from their genome and those who haven't? Would health insurance for the second set dramatically skyrocket as in the days before the ACA with "pre-existing conditions?" Another argument against stem cell research is that it requires embyros, and therefore it is unethical. I don't buy this argument personally, but it doesn't seem to be something that can be factually debated: either you think embyros deserve protection as a human being or you don't. For me tho, it's possible that with research we will be able to find ways to create stem cells more easily and without this moral ambiguity, but we won't know until we try.