Two stem cell research experts visited Marquette Tuesday night to debate the ethical and policy issues of a field that law professor Alison Barnes said "raises great hopes and great fears."

Robyn S. Shapiro, director of the Medical College of Wisconsin's Center for the Study of Bioethics, and O. Carter Snead, associate professor of law at the University of Notre Dame and former chairman of President Bush's Council of Bioethics, served as panelists for the discussion in the Law School in front of about 50 students, faculty and members of the Marquette community.

Barnes, who moderated the event, said Shapiro and Snead were invited to Marquette to give students and faculty insight into stem cell research — a prominent and often contentious topic of political and scientific discussion in recent years.

Stem cells are cells that can develop into different types of tissue, making them potential sources of treatment for conditions ranging from spinal cord injuries to diabetes, according to Shapiro.

But not all stem cells come from the same sources or have the same potential, she said.

Embryonic stem cells, taken from early human embryos, are thought to have greater versatility and viability than those extracted from adult tissue, according to Shapiro..

However, Snead said the process of extracting embryonic stem cells destroys the embryos, which some believe are entitled to the same rights as any human person.

And while embryonic stem cells are a source of great potential, researchers have also made major advances using adult stem cells, he said.

But Shapiro said embryonic stem cells hold potential researchers have yet to tap due to a lack of funding.

Federal laws, including a 1996 ban on public funding for projects that destroy embryos for research and a 2001 order from President Bush that allows public funding for only research on existing embryonic stem cell lines, are behind the lack of funding, she said.

Shapiro said the Bush administration's current funding policy "makes no sense" if the administrations claims the destruction of embryos is morally wrong.

"If this research is immoral, it should be eliminated," she said.

But Snead said the administration's position is a practical stance, not an absolutist one.

He said the administration wants to advance the science so long as the government does not "incentivize research which calls for the destruction of human embryos."

According to Shapiro, hundreds of thousands of unused embryos are currently in storage at fertility clinics. Many of them would be destroyed anyway and could be used instead for research, she said.

But only a few thousand of those embryos are authorized for research, while "we would literally need millions of embryos" to conduct proper research, Snead said.

Public support for the treatments stem cell research might provide should not sway the administration's stance, Snead said.

"If it's the right thing to do, it's the right thing to do," he said.

Shapiro said the discussion hit on issues "of critical importance."

"It's critical for society to engage in conversations like this so that we can resolve (the issue) thoughtfully and deliberately," she said.