By Ricky Thompson

Freshman Lauren Erickson relies on an insulin pump to provide her body with the appropriate amount of sugar throughout the day.

Seven years ago the athletic training major was diagnosed with type one diabetes, a condition that has altered her day-to-day activities.

“It’s a horrible disease and it changes everyone’s life,” she said.

Research that could help and one day potentially cure Erickson’s disease is at the center of a debate on Beacon Hill, as Massachusetts lawmakers argue over the use of embryonic stem cells.

The debate may reach a new phase by the end of March as a bill promoting the research is expected to be passed in both the Massachusetts House and Senate. If lawmakers are able to achieve a two-thirds majority in each vote, the measure would survive an anticipated veto by Governor Mitt Romney.

Research involving embryonic stem cells has been the subject of controversy among “pro-life” advocates such as Romney because the cells are removed from the human embryo in the days following conception.

The embryos used for this procedure have been developed from eggs that were fertilized in an in-vitro fertilization clinic and donated for research purposes. Embryonic stem cells are generally removed from the embryo when it is four to five days old.

Romney outlined his stance on embryonic stem cell research in a letter last month to Senate President Robert E. Travaglini. In it, he stated that research on existing embryonic stem cell lines should be permitted in Massachusetts, a move that is consistent with a federal policy President George W. Bush declared Aug. 9, 2001.

However, unlike the president’s plan, which restricts present-day embryonic stem cell research to already existing batches, Romney aims to allow development on surplus stem cell lines that would otherwise be discarded from fertility clinics.

The current bill put forth by policy makers takes Romney’s initiative one step further by seeking to allow the cloning and creation of new human embryos for the intent of research – a notion the governor opposes.

“Respect for human life is a fundamental element of civilized society,” Romney wrote in his letter to Travaglini.

Erickson said she supports stem cell research because she would one day like to see a cure for her disease.

According to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), a division of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, stem cells “offer the possibility of a renewable source of replacement cells and tissues to treat a myriad of diseases, conditions and disabilities, such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s diseases, spinal cord injury, heart disease and diabetes.”

Northeastern political science professor William Miles said Romney’s stance in the debate could be attributed to his party’s “pro-life” policy.

“I think [Romney] sees the general national trend of a more conservative, religion-based framework that the electorate is embracing,” Miles said. “Just as President Bush was re-elected, in part, on his traditional family values platform, I believe Gov. Romney feels that he can score points even in Massachusetts by doing something similar.”

Students in Miles’ “Religion and Politics” course have shown interest in seeing the embryonic stem cell research continue, the professor said.

“I brought it up about a week or two ago,” he said. “Students at Northeastern, at least in my classes, are rather liberal and so they are in favor of stem cell research proceeding in general.”

Although she supports stem cell research, Erickson said she is not for cloning.

“In the future, cloning is going to get way out of hand,” she said. “It’s going to be too much to control later on.”

Freshman biology major Charles Abdelahad said he is opposed to stem cell research altogether.

“I’ve always held the stance on taking the moral view of things, so obviously it’s against what I believe,” Abdelahad said.

Abdelahad, an Orthodox Christian, said his religious beliefs play a considerable role in his opinion on embryonic stem cell research.

“I remember hearing something about how they use the [embryos] from the fertility clinics that have the potential to become an actual human,” he said. “It’s the whole pro-life argument; it doesn’t matter if it’s alive yet, it still has the potential. Even though it’s researched for the betterment [of society], it’s still taking away a possible life.”

To Northeastern alumnus Spiro Marangoudakis, the ends justify the means.

Marangoudakis, who graduated from the university last year with a degree in biology, now works as a research assistant for a biotechnology company in Cambridge.

“I’m definitely for [stem cell research] since I work with it and I know that it can help people,” he said.

Marangoudakis’ research has been predominately with adult stem cells, which are taken from bone marrow and tissue that has already matured.

“There are a bunch of benefits [to stem cell research],” Marangoudakis said. “If you have leukemia and go through chemotherapy, it kills off all of your adult stem cells and all of your adult blood cells. After the cancer is cured, [doctors] will inject you with adult stem cells and that’s how you usually beat leukemia and other blood cancers.”

Despite the effectiveness of adult stem cells, Maran-goudakis said embryonic stem cells are even more effective than adult stem cells.

“Adult stem cells are already differentiated into the blood lineage,” he said. “That’s why they use embryonic [stem cells], because they can differentiate into muscles, nerves, anything – that’s why it’s more useful.”