l for therapies and cures. The results could be the answer to numerous questions and problems. But, besides the obvious abortion debate, many critics contest that SCR is not a worthwhile research pursuit. To a degree, "the lack of regulation and public scrutiny of the infertility industry is the real reason behind both this business 'opportunity' and controversy" (Clarke, 12).
             Briefly, the embryonic SCR social dilemma can essentially be broken down into being a debate between a Pro-Life and a Pro-Choice campaign. The former party fiercely protests the research, while the latter encourages it for its immense implications. Research opponents say SCR is wrong because it destroys human life. Supporters say the embryos were going to be destroyed anyway and that "research from their cells holds the potential to cure debilitating diseases such as diabetes, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's" (Berger, 2). The questions raised by the controversy put forth a great number of possible reasons and arguments to either support or attack the current research.
             Embryonic SCR forecasts an unimaginable amount of breakthroughs in the next few years. Focusing on the business aspect of this innovative idea, it has caught the attention of many "investors and researchers who look to gain extensive monetary rewards for this technology" (Berger, 10). Scientists envision a day when stem cells can be used to repair damaged organs such as the heart, brain or kidney rather than having to opt for potentially toxic drugs, a transplant operation, or analgesic care for the terminally ill. Recognizing this amazing possibility, enough venture capitalis
             ...