When James Thomson at the University of Wisconsin and John Gearhardt at John Hopkins University were able to culture human embryonic stem cells in a lab in 1998, they opened up an entire world of controversy now known as the stem cell debate. The importance of embryonic stem cells to modern science and medicine rests largely on the fact that they are pluripotent. This means that they have the ability to form into any cell necessary within the body; they can be encouraged to become skin cells, brain cells, etc. Organs could be grown in a lab and transplanted into patients, and these cells could be used to test new drugs, rather than a live human subject. This technology, according to scientists, could foster the ability to cure any disease, illness, or injury, but at what cost? Opponents of stem cell research believe that the practice of embryonic study and culture is immoral, while proponents suggest that this technology is necessary for the advancement of medical research.
In 2001, then President George W. Bush quickly sided with those believing the research to be immoral. During his primetime address, he advocated only to allow research on cell lines already in existence. Much of this side of the argument is based on the idea that human eggs are fertilized with sperm to create an embryo, and then destroyed to harvest the stem cells within the blastocyst. Many religious and pro-life groups – including, the Catholic Church, Christian Medical Association, Family Bioethics Counsel, etc. – believe that life begins at conception, and feel that this involves the destruction of human life. They consider it equal to abortion, which they also oppose.
A few years after this controversy emerged, in 2006, two bills were passed th...
... middle of paper ...
...ther group acknowledges the morality of purposefully fertilizing eggs in order to study and destroy them. This belief was solidified when S.3504 was passed by a unanimous vote of acceptance in the Senate.
There are many pieces of the stem cell puzzle that have yet to be navigated. Are we being too hasty by pushing embryonic research over that of adult stem cells? Is it ethical to kill a being classified in biological terms as a life form for the potential advancement of science? Is an embryo even worthy of rights if it can’t think, feel, or communicate? Or do the positives of embryonic stem cell research so far outweigh the negatives that the sacrifice is minimal? Adversaries of embryonic research explain that it is absolutely unethical, while supporters argue that this research is essential to our medical future. There may never be one right answer.
In President Barack Obama’s speech of 2009, he issued an executive order which lifted the ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, placed by the President George W. Bush. Obama addresses important factors of why he removed the ban such as keeping innovative scientists in the country and the many future promises the research holds. The president is biased towards the future of using embryonic stem cells in his speech― he strongly supports them and strives to improve research opportunities. However, President Obama does acknowledge the downside effects that this research can bring such as the risk of human cloning and addresses how it will be prevented. This speech will support an embryonic stem cell argumentative essay by demonstrating the benefits this research can bring to the country.
Late one night a woman is driving home on the freeway, she’s hit head on by a drunk driver and killed. The man is charged with two accounts of murder; the woman, and her four-week-old embryo inside her. By law, everyone human being is guaranteed rights of life; born or unborn they are equal. The same law should be enforced concerning human embryonic stem cell research. Dr. James A. Thomson discovered stem cells in 1998 and they’ve intrigued scientist ever since. The stem cells themselves are derived from a three to four day old cluster of cells called a blastocyst and they are so coveted because they are pluripotent, meaning they can differentiate into any type of cell in the human body. Although embryonic stem cells show amazing potential to cure various disease such as cancer, congestive heart failure, Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease, muscular dystrophies, and more. The methods by which they are obtained is controversial. Research on embryonic stem cells is unethical, unnecessary, and purely homicide.
Because of these high standards, all embryonic cells used for research come from embryos that have been formed for in vitro fertilization. The unused embryos, which are not used for the process, are discarded unless the donor gives explicit consent for their use in stem cell research (CIRM, 2015). Some who oppose stem cell research use scripture (col. 1:16) as a basis against using products of “sin to do good”. (Which is true). This verse only holds weight if you believe that you are ending a life five days after fertilization. I tend to side with Dr. Peter Kraus in this matter. He believes this early in the developmental stages there is nothing for the spirit of god to enter into. You might as well be taking a sample of the placenta, or cord blood (Kraus, 2010). The process of in vitro, which is where the samples come from, is further the product of man (i.e. Scientist) introducing the sperm to the egg. True, what follows after the embryo is introduced to the womb is a gift from god. Is not also a sturdy structure, a gift from god to a carpenter, when it is god who gave him the talent to build it? Lastly, if the stance is based on the topic of what is considered murder, are we not murdering the millions that could be helped with stem cell therapy by doing nothing?
One of the most heated political battles in the United States in recent years has been over the morality of embryonic stem cell research. The embryonic stem cell debate has polarized the country into those who argue that such research holds promises of ending a great deal of human suffering and others who condemn such research as involving the abortion of a potential human life. If any answer to the ethical debate surrounding this particular aspect of stem cell research exists, it is a hazy one at best. The question facing many scientists and policymakers involved in embryonic stem cell research is, which is more valuable – the life of a human suffering from a potentially fatal illness or injury, or the life of human at one week of development? While many argue that embryonic stem cell research holds the potential of developing cures for a number of illnesses that affect many individuals, such research is performed at the cost of destroying a life and should therefore not be pursued.
The possibility to cure Alzheimer, Parkinson’s, AIDS, spinal injuries, and many more diseases and conditions is received by many in the medical world with excitement and anticipation. The discoveries of embryonic stem, ES, cells in 1998 by James A. Thomson, a biologist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, was a great breakthrough for the medical world, showing great promise in the field of stem cell research. This is because they have the capacity to become any type of cell tissue in the body. To the medical world the opportunities seems endless. However, there is a great deal of debate by some who question the moral and ethical use of ES cells, believing that life begins at fertilization. Supporters argue that we have an obligation to help others who are suffering by using ES cells, because they are consider potential life. The question is do we have the right to use ES cells for research purposes when the embryos will be grown specifically for research and destruction? And if so, should this research be funded by the government?
While many support embryonic stem cell research, some people oppose it say that it is an unethical practice. According to these people, embryonic stem cells require murdering a baby, human life is defined by rational beings, those capable of rational thought or a consciousness. In order to be rational one must have a consciousness, the ability to have thoughts and feel pain, to begin with. “For a fertilized egg, there is no consciousness and also no history of consciousness” (Stem). If abortions are allowed within the United States, why shouldn’t embryonic stem cell research be? Another claim against embryonic stem cell research is that it devalues human lives. “Some argue that researching embryonic stem cells will lead us into cloning technology” (Embryonic). While embryonic cloning is a possibility, we already possess the capabilities to clone so cloning is an invalid argument. The final argument against embryonic stem cell research is that there are alternatives, like adult stem cells. While adult stem cells may be utilized, they won’t be as effective. Embryonic stem cells are not only efficient but also renewable. They can be grown in a culture where as adult stem cells are extremely rare, if there are any. They can only be found in mature tissue. Isolating these extremely rare cells is challenging and has a high failure rate if not harvested correctly. “One major difference between adult and embryonic stem cells is their different abilities in the number and type of differentiated cell types they can become” (Stem). Using adult stem cells we might never understand our development from conception ...
As technology stem cell research intensifies, so does the controversy about whether such scientific progress is moral. In the past millennium to today the present stem cell research has become a controversial topic across the world. Stem cells are unspecialized cells that have unique regenerative abilities, allowing them to divide into specialized cell types. Understanding why these processes occur is essential to curing disease. Critics of stem cell research argue that the extraction of embryonic stem cells involves destroying an early embryo, equating the act of killing a human. Although stem cell research is a highly controversial topic, it is compulsory to continue stem cell research within ethical boundaries for the benefit of mankind.
... S. Fundamentals of the Stem Cell Debate: The Scientific, Religious, Ethical, and Political Issues. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008. Print.
When Marry Shelley says, “…how dangerous is the acquirement of knowledge…” she is correct to an extent. A perfect example of this is stem cell research. It is amazing, stem cells can grow new organs, repair old ones, and cure conditions that were thought to be incurable before; however, at the current moment, the most convenient way to harvest stem cells is by harvesting the cells from an embryo, which is destroyed in the process. Although stem cells from embryos are the main focus right now, there are new alternatives that are being researched that will avoid the ethical issues with embryonic stem cells, which include stem cells from bone marrow, placentas, teeth, and umbilical cords.
Whereas there are many facets of medical research in the world at the present time, one of the more controversial continues to be stem cell research and more specifically, embryonic stem cell research. The percentage of groups and individuals who agree or disagree with this science are roughly equal on both sides of the argument. There are many quarrels within this one area including “should stem cell research be federally funded”, “is embryonic stem cell research ethical”, and “is the outcome of stem cell research worth it”? While there is no right or wrong answer to these questions, since the answer would vary depending on whom you ask, the argument regarding this topic remains quite passionate and heated.
The controversy behind the stem cell research has been raging since the first experiments. The United States Congress banned federally supported human-embryo research in 1996, forcing scientists to solicit funding from private sponsors. Since stem cells are harvested from aborted fetuses, the ethical issues surrounding abortion act as a stigma in the public’s view. However, in September of last year, the National Bioethics Advisory Commission concluded that harvesting stem cells from discarded embryos is morally akin to removing organs from dead people for transplant. Stem cell research continues to be very controversial, yet prevalent in the scientific community.
Stem cell research is becoming an issue that is one of the most profound of our time. The issue of research involving stem cells derived from human embryos is increasingly the subject of dinner table discussions and a national debate. The issue is confronted every day in laboratories as scientists ponder the ethical consequences of their work. It is agonized over by parents and many couples as they try to have children, or save children already born. The issue is debated within the church, with people of different faiths, even many of the same faith coming to different conclusions. Many people are finding that the more they know about stem cell research, the less certain they are about the right ethical and moral conclusions.
A unanimous decision should be made on when to consider an embryo a human being that has morality. Until then I believe that the embryo is not close to a human life unless it has made it past the fourteen day period in which it is passed the twinning stage. So with this information I come to the conclusion that under specific regulations and laws, including the ones I mentioned in the summary, the cloning of embryos for biomedical research and obtaining stem cells should be deemed acceptable.
Within the past few years, scientist have made several breakthroughs with human stem cells. These breakthroughs have catapulted the issue of stem cell research into the middle of a national debate. Most people have no problem with the research itself, however the source of the stem cells (adult or human embryos) used in research is the primary cause of the debate. Some people feel that destroying an embryo is comparable to murder, even if the research it promotes may help people with serious illnesses. Other believe that an embryo is not a person and therefore research on an embryo is the same as research on any other group of cells.
Stem cells offer exciting promise for future therapies, but significant technical hurdles remain that will only be overcome through years of intensive research. Stem Cells have the incredible potential to develop into many different cell types in the body during early life and growth. Scientists primarily work with two kinds of stem cells from animals and humans. The embryonic stem cells and the non-embryonic stem cells. Stem cells are the cells from which all other cells originate. In a human embryo, a large portion of the embryo’s cells are stem cells. These stem cells can be used for cell-based therapies. Cell-Based therapies are treatments in which stem cells are induced to differentiate into the specific cell type required to repair damaged or destroyed cells or tissues. Stem cells are versatile and offer the possibility to treat a number of diseases including Alzheimer’s, stroke, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, etc. The problem is that for the process of embryonic stem cell research and embryo will be destroyed if used. This raises a moral issue and questions of whether stem cell research is unethical or not.