I believe that an issue that our generation will face soon is the ethical balance of STEM cell research. It is a current problem that scientists today are working on. It is well known that the ethical issues of genetic experimentation have caused upheaval throughout the modern world, and as scientific discoveries progress, it is becoming eminent that the ethical debate will continue. Despite the potential benefit of using human cells in the treatment of disease, their use remains controversial because of their derivation from human embryos. The pressure is on as so much is yet to be discovered, and the fight over genetic research will be pushed as time goes on. Soon, it will be our generation’s turn to give opinions on this disputed topic. …show more content…
The human cell is complex in a way we are just beginning understand, and in order to understand the full potential of the results of an experiment, human cells are the only option, without altering variables to adjust for an animal cellular structure. A popular topic also includes ‘therapeutic’ cloning. (In the articles we read, it provided ideas surrounding the topic of cloning, as well as situational theories.) The term therapeutic suggests that hES cell therapy is already a practiced reality. Some consider this as ethically neutral, as a not pre-implanted embryo is in use. Although the purpose of therapeutic cloning is not to manufacture a new individual, there are still debates on whether it is morally acceptable. There are different perspectives on all matter of this subject. Most contrasting are a fetalist and a feminist perspective. The details are extremely complex in the way both assess the topic of instrumental use of embryos, but the opinion on research is still debatable. Our generation is facing heavy involvement in this dispute as the future …show more content…
CRISPR stands for “clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats.” In summary, it can and is being usd to target mutations in a person’s genes, or more specifically, to edit base pairs to ensure no chance or a harmful alteration. In my article, which surrounded the idea of using CRISPR to cure genetic diseases in organisms not yet born (embryos), an expert panel has just recently approved the use of human genome editing; just not in the womb. This means that “Any cells edited in a lab may not be used to establish a pregnancy.” according to the article. It leaves loopholes for cloning however, yet the specific topic has its own discussion currently. Yet the scientists did not view this as a ban on germline edits. Instead, they recommended that experts should review guidelines on what and how to proceed. The idea that science is always advancing, guides our daily lives. Public opinions can change, and it is essential that we continue to question and preserve human rights throughout this field of science. We are now facing questions such as, “When does human life begin?” or “How will we experiment further once (or if) we perfect editing techniques?” Soon, it will be our generation of scientists turn to move forwards with this experimental branch of
Therapeutic cloning is the process whereby parts of a human body are grown independently from a body from STEM cells collected from embryos for the purpose of using these parts to replace dysfunctional ones in living humans. Therapeutic Cloning is an important contemporary issue as the technology required to conduct Therapeutic Cloning is coming, with cloning having been successfully conducted on Dolly the sheep. This process is controversial as in the process of collecting STEM cells from an embryo, the embryo will be killed. Many groups, institutions and religions see this as completely unacceptable, as they see the embryo as a human life. Whereas other groups believe that this is acceptable as they do not believe that the embryo is a human life, as well as the fact that this process will greatly benefit a large number of people. In this essay I will compare the view of Christianity who are against Therapeutic Cloning with Utilitarianism who are in favour of Therapeutic Cloning.
Children grow up watching movies such as Star Wars as well as Gattaca that contain the idea of cloning which usually depicts that society is on the brink of war or something awful is in the midsts but, with todays technology the sci-fi nature of cloning is actually possible. The science of cloning obligates the scientific community to boil the subject down into the basic category of morality pertaining towards cloning both humans as well as animals. While therapeutic cloning does have its moral disagreements towards the use of using the stem cells of humans to medically benefit those with “incomplete” sets of DNA, the benefits of therapeutic cloning outweigh the disagreements indubitably due to the fact that it extends the quality of life for humans.
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.
Stem cell research is a heavily debated topic that can stir trouble in even the tightest of Thanksgiving tables. The use cells found in the cells of embryos to replicate dead or dying cells is a truly baffling thought. To many, stem cell research has the potential to be Holy Grail of modern medicine. To many others, it is ultimately an unethical concept regardless of its capabilities. Due to how divided people are on the topic of stem cell research, its legality and acceptance are different everywhere. According to Utilitarianism, stem cell research should be permitted due to the amount of people it can save, however according to the Divine Command of Christianity, the means of collecting said stem cells are immoral and forbidden.
“Cloning represents a very clear, powerful, and immediate example in which we are in danger of turning procreation into manufacture.” (Kass) The concept of cloning continues to evoke debate, raising extensive ethical and moral controversy. As humans delve into the fields of science and technology, cloning, although once considered infeasible, could now become a reality. Although many see this advancement as the perfect solution to our modern dilemmas, from offering a potential cure for cancer, AIDS, and other irremediable diseases, its effects are easily forgotten. Cloning, especially when concerning humans, is not the direction we must pursue in enhancing our lives. It is impossible for us to predict its effects, it exhausts monetary funds, and it harshly abases humanity.
Monroe, Kristen, et al., eds. Fundamentals of the Stem Cell Debate: The Scientific, Religious, Ethical and Political Issues. Los Angeles/Berkley: University of California Press, 2008. Print
From the discussion above it is very clear that there are different opinions on the pros and cons of stem cell research. Based on the recent researches, scientists have the capability to work out the alternatives for embryonic stem cell research. And the usefulness compare to embryonic stem cell remains unknown. Undeniably, the stem cell research issue has its most complex parts to be resolved and surmounted. But perhaps we can disclose the way to carry out stem cell research with the balance of bioethics and most importantly, do no harm for humankind one day.
Stem cell research has been a heated and highly controversial debate for over a decade, which explains why there have been so many articles on the issue. Like all debates, the issue is based on two different arguments: the scientific evolution and the political war against that evolution. The debate proves itself to be so controversial that is both supported and opposed by many different people, organizations, and religions. There are many “emotional images [that] have been wielded” in an attempt to persuade one side to convert to the other (Hirsen). The stem cell research debate, accompanied by different rhetoric used to argue dissimilar points, comes to life in two articles and a speech: “Should Human Cloning Be Allowed? Yes, Don’t Impede Medical Progress” by Virginia Postrel; “Should Human Cloning Be Allowed? No, It’s a Moral Monstrosity” by Eric Cohen and William Kristol; and “Remarks by Ron Reagan, Jr., to the 2004 Democratic National Convention” by Ron Reagan, Jr. Ethos, pathos, and logos are the main categories differentiating the two arguments.
Imagine yourself in a society in which individuals with virtually incurable diseases could gain the essential organs and tissues that perfectly match those that are defected through the use of individual human reproductive cloning. In a perfect world, this could be seen as an ideal and effective solution to curing stifling biomedical diseases and a scarcity of available organs for donation. However, this approach in itself contains many bioethical flaws and even broader social implications of how we could potentially view human clones and integrate them into society. Throughout the focus of this paper, I will argue that the implementation of human reproductive cloning into healthcare practices would produce adverse effects upon family dynamic and society due to its negative ethical ramifications. Perhaps the most significant conception of family stems from a religious conception of assisted reproductive technologies and cloning and their impact on family dynamics with regard to its “unnatural” approach to procreation. Furthermore, the broader question of the ethical repercussions of human reproductive cloning calls to mind interesting ways in which we could potentially perceive and define individualism, what it means to be human and the right to reproduction, equality and self-creation in relation to our perception of family.
Professional Ethics Assignment - 1 Ethics of Embryonic Stem Cell Research: Finding Common Ground Prepared By: Dhara N Mehta (13MPH802) INTRODUCTION Biomedical sciences are advancing at stunning rate. This is no more clear than in the prospering field of immature microorganism research where restorative applications, for example, tissue and organ transplantation are generally created. These helps can possibly spare a large number of lives and enormously decrease human enduring.
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.
Some claim that so called reproductive cloning and cloning for biomedical research can lead to serious abnormalities and birth defects(Sandel, 241). The defenders of liberal eugenics argue that parents should be free to enhance the genetic traits of their children for the sake of improving their life prospects(Agar 1999). The division among the people on skeptics and enthusiasts of cloning somehow create an atmosphere of taboo around the topic. In Ishiguro’s dystopia, technology is so well developed that cloning finally becomes a reality. All moral dilemmas have been denied and no one cares anymore about the fate of those who became organ donors.
In the article that I chose there are two opposing viewpoints on the issue of “Should Human Cloning Ever Be Permitted?” John A. Robertson is an attorney who argues that there are many potential benefits of cloning and that a ban on privately funded cloning research is unjustified and that this type of research should only be regulated. On the flip side of this issue Attorney and medical ethicist George J. Annas argues that cloning devalues people by depriving them of their uniqueness and that a ban should be implemented upon it. Both express valid points and I will critique the articles to better understand their points.
"Human Cloning and Human Dignity: An Ethical Inquiry." The President's Council on Bioethics Washington, D.C. N.p., July-Aug. 2002. Web.
Lauritzen, Paul. Cloning and the Future of Human Embryo Research. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2001. Google Books. Web. 12 Feb. 2014. source 12 (google books)