In addition to the many technical challenges to stem cell research, there are numerous other obstacles impeding the advancement of the field.
The ethics of stem cell research are controversial, in particular with regards to therapeutic cloning and the use of fertilized eggs for sources for either stem cell research or stem cell therapies.
Looking back historically, there were always ethical concerns at each advancing step in reproductive technologies. For example, when in vitro fertilization and “test tube babies” first appeared on the scene, there was some ethical resistance before it became commonplace. However, destroying embryos or cloning human embryos for the sake of therapeutics, are likely to meet with much more ethical debate before, if ever, it becomes commonplace.
Some religions, cultures and morays can slow the advancement of stem cell research. For example, extreme conservative Christianity usually takes a negative stance on stem cell research involving unborn fetuses, though adult stem cells are usually met with acceptance. In Islamic faith, embryonic issues are also a source of active debate, usually surrounding the time of ensoulment based on interpretations of The Holy Quran. However, because of positive decrees (known as fatwa) by the Islamic authorities that some forms of human embryonic stem cell research are acceptable, one of the initial countries to culture human embryonic stem cells was the Islamic Republic of Iran (Larijani, 2005).
In addition to ethical and cultural hurdles, some countries have laws protecting the rights of fetuses, hampering some forms of stem cell research and therapeutics. Moreover, the laws usually vary widely from country to country, resulting in additional red tape for worldwide collaborators.
Stem cell research is a hotly charged issue for constituents in many countries, having both advocates and enemies. Democratic countries, within reason, have the agenda set by the majority. If a democratic country elects a leader based partly on restricting stem cell research, then the leader risks losing their post the following election unless there is follow-through on that restriction. Leaders may also have to face heavy lobby groups from existing pharmaceutical companies who have existing oral or paraenteral drug therapies that would have to compete with stem cell therapies for the same disease. Other political leaders may wish to distance themselves from such the emotional stem cell issue entirely: neither shutting down stem cell research completely, nor giving it the adequate funds to continue properly.
While patents can be used to drive corporate innovation, there is accompanying negative consequences. Patents are a country-specific issue, thus have no universal approach to regulation. Governments in the United States, United Kingdom, Australia and others have given patent offices varying policies regarding patentability of stem cell technologies. The major concern of patents is the potential for early, broad patents to throttle competing research and advances. (Then, 2005).
Many of the stem cell therapy technologies are both expensive to develop and expensive to implement. A probable socio-economic barrier would restrict the access to the therapy to the wealthier members of society. There would likely be concern for the ability of public or private insurance companies to cover the costs.
There are however two valid counterarguments. For example, the initial costs of curing someone of diabetes may pale to the cost of long term supportive care for that patient. Additionally, the cost of stem cell therapy may be outweighed by the so-called restored “opportunity cost” in which a patient who is restored to working capacity can earn wages instead of taking disability benefit.