Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
essay on the ethics and science of embryonic stem cells
controversy of stem cell research
essay on the ethics and science of embryonic stem cells
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In the 2004 presidential election, one of the most controversial issues facing voters was the battle over embryonic stem cell research. In the weeks leading up to the election, polls were indicating that 47 percent of Bush supporters agreed that the destruction of embryo cells is unethical; however, 53 percent of Bush voters supported stem cell research. The overwhelming majority of Kerry backers also supported stem cell research, indicating that the majority of American voters support stem cell research. Embryonic stem cell research, while still in its infancy, has the potential to treat or perhaps even cure more than 100 million people suffering from a variety of illnesses and conditions. Scientists agree that stem cells could be one of the greatest revolutions in modern medicine. On the opposing side of the issue, many citizens believe that destroying an embryo is the equivalent to killing an unborn child. While many people assume the battle is about the use of stem cells for research purposes, it now seems that the major political controversy is the role of the federal government in funding human embryo research. Many scientists contend that the furor began with President Bush's August 2001 decision to limit government funding to embryonic stem cell lines that had already been created. Since then, scientists have been scrambling to expand funding for stem cell research with few alternatives. The central question is, "Should private funding from companies, individuals, and foundations control the future economic, public health, and social benefits of stem cell research or should the federal government?" Allowing the federal government to fund and, thereby, control stem cell research ensures appropriate regulation and ...
... middle of paper ...
...ates that human embryos must be destroyed in the process of taking their cells, and it is never ethically acceptable to destroy human life for the purpose of "benefit to the many." She also rejects the use of discarded embryos to further stem cell research, and indicates that although stem cell research is legal it is morally unethical and should not be furthered or expanded beyond the government's limitations. This argument is the foundation of the moral opposition to federally supported stem cell research. However, many scientists argue that a country that does not support attempts to alleviate human suffering is also acting immorally. Lempert and Dixon assert that morality requires responsibility and by failing to fund human embryo stem cell research while allowing privately funded research to proceed, the federal government is nullifying its responsibility.
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.
Are embryonic stem cells the cure to many of the human body’s ailments, including defective organs and crippling diseases, or is their use a blatant disregard of human rights and the value of life? Thanks to the rapid advancements in this field, the potential benefits of stem cells are slowly becoming reality. However, embryonic stem cell research is an extremely divisive topic in the United States thanks to the ethical issues surrounding terminating embryos to harvest the stem cells. In response to this debate, Congress passed the Dickey-Wicker amendment in 1995 to prohibit federal funding of research that involved the destruction of embryos. President Bush affirmed this decision, but more recently President Obama lifted many of these restrictions. Despite the significant portion of Americans that do not support embryonic stem cell research, it should be federally funded because of the potential health benefits, the definition of human, and the opportunity to clearly define regulations for ethical research.
The Nobel laureates' inaccurate letter to President Bush urging him to feed federal funds to human-embryo stem-cell research has had PR value in the media. It perpetuates a number of misconceptions and misleading statements regarding stem-cell research, particularly embryonic as opposed to adult stem-cell research, and will serve to continue to cloud the issue. Some of these deceptive statements are the subject of this essay.
...y, J. (2014). Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research Can Meet Ethical Guidelines. In L. I. Gerdes
...ns of a morally questionable nature. It is necessary that our practices remain ethical and that we uphold the value of a human life, as this is the cornerstone of human society. Embryonic stem cell research is one such operation that forces scientists, policy makers, and the larger society to define what constitutes a human life and to find an answer to the crucial question: Is it morally acceptable to violate the rights of a human life for the for the sake of medical progress?
Francis (Ed.), At Issue. Should the Government Fund Embryonic Stem Cell Research?. Detroit: Greenhaven Press. (2009). (Reprinted from, n.d.) (Reprinted from Science Magazine, 22 September 2006) Retrieved from http://padme.cochise.edu:2067/ic/ovic/ViewpointsDetailsPage/ViewpointsDetailsWindow?displayGroupName=Viewpoints&prodId=OVIC&action=2&catId=&documentId=GALE%7CEJ3010587207&userGroupName=sier28590&jsid=67271fc8c381f89007dff41cfd3813e6
The President’s Council on Bioethics published “Monitoring Stem Cell Research” in 2004. This report was written in response to President Bush’s comments regarding research of human stem cells on August 9, 2001. President Bush announced that he was going to make federal funding available for research that involved existing lines of stem cells that came from embryos. He is the first president to provide any type of financial support for the research of human stem cells. A Council was created with people who are educated in the field of stem cells to help monitor the research and to recommend guidelines and consider the ethical consequences that this research could create. This report is an “update” given by the President’s Council in January of 2004 to make the public aware of the significant developments in the science and medical aspects of stem cell research. It also describes the ethical, legal and political implications that stem cell research may create. However, since the research is still in its beginning stages, this “update” does not describe a complete or definitive study of stem cells nor does it provide specific guidelines or regulations. This is a report that is suppose to help the President, Congress and general public make better-informed decisions as to the direction that we should go with stem cells.
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.
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.
Due to public awareness of science, people started realise that the stem cells have the potential in developing cell-based therapies for many uncured diseases. Objectors claimed that it is morally wrong for the government to advocate stem cell research because the research demands embryos’ destruction (National Bioethics Advisory Committee [NBAC], 1999, as cited in Nisbet, 2004).’’It’s immoral that hundreds of thousands of embryos are discarded yearly instead of used to research cures for human suffering.” (Gilbert, 2008).In 2001, President George W. Bush made his stand to oppose the stem cell research by l...
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.
On April 28, 2011 - the United States Appeals Court overturned the rule of a federal judge because of several issues that emerged with stem cell research being funded by the government. Although, the science of human embryonic stem cell is in its initial stages - there is much hope for scientific advancement due to the ability for human embryonic stem cells to grow into virtually various kinds of cells Favorably, advocates for stem cell research and pharmaceutical companies strongly believe that stem cells may pave a way to discover new methods of treatment for devastating ailments; such as, Leukemia, Alzheimer’s disease, Heart disease, Parkinson’s disease and diabetes- a prospect that is inspiring to both scientists and those who are seeking cures for themselves and family members. In contrast, numerous pro-life advocates are against federal funding for stem cell research because of the method in which these stem cells are extracted. In addition, several other groups argue that the federal government has abandoned more substantial as well as promising and less controversial adult and cord stem cell research. Instead, the government has dedicated a majority of their funding in favor of the more popular and controversial stem research. Ultimately, as long as humans exist - the need for a more extensive and technological progress will be abundant and crucial to humanity's survival. However, does the needs of the human species outweigh the potential lives embryos represent? With so much on the line, let us explore exactly what human embryonic stem cell (HESC) research is and what may be potentially weighing in the balance for the human race if we proceed down this road.
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
Stem cell research holds the potential for many exciting treatments applicable to pernicious diseases; diseases such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, diabetes and spinal injury, that cause a loss of function of or total loss of cells. Nonetheless, few other areas of science have generated such an intriguing premise. Unrelenting debate over which fundamental principle is given precedence: the duty to value a human life or the duty to alleviate suffering. In Oklahoma, a recent decision on this ethical dilemma put a complete ban on stem cell research altogether. The legislation creates a felon out of researchers and embryo donors involved in the process. To make a decision such as this one must be in the right mindset and ask the right questions
There has been a great debate on whether there should be federal funding for stem cell research over the last decade. This has been a very controversial subject because in order to obtain stem cells, scientists must destroy a human embryo; making this a subject ripe with emotional turmoil. For close to three decades, the status on funding for stem cell research has remained in limbo. In 1973, the Supreme Court ruled that abortion is legal in the first two trimesters, a decision made in the famous case of Roe v. Wade. In 1996, the Dickey-Wicker amendment was adopted, stating that there shall not be any federal funds “for the creation of a human embryo for research purposes in which the embryo is destroyed, discarded or knowingly subjected to risks of injury or death” (Annas).