Should Stem Cell Research be prohibited? The ongoing bioethical controversy of stem cells research has been debated in political arenas across the world. As with any debate there are two sides to the issue. Scientific researchers want to expand their research into emerging fields like stem cell research in hopes of bettering medicine for the future. Human right activists and some religious groups are against this type of research because the harvesting of stem cells from embryos is seen as the destruction of human life. These activists believe using human tissue as a starting point for new cell development is unnatural; killing one person to help another (author). Nevertheless, it is an unconventional and controversial type of medicine that could prove to be groundbreaking. With the proliferation of disease such as cancer in our society, stem cell research must be furthered implored in order to cure diseases and save countless lives despite the ethical controversy it has created. Stem cells are cells that have not differentiated to form specialized tissues, and can be found in the blastocyst during the embryological growth, as well as in the bone marrow of adult tissues. However, those that are collected in the inner mass of the embryo seem to hold more potential for producing newer treatments for diseases because unlike adult cells these embryonic cells are pluripotent. Embryonic stem cells are the fundamental building blocks for most specialized cells in the body (author). Stem cells are pluripotent, they can grow to become many cell types and can be used as a way to replace damaged or diseases cells. For example, a patient with nerve damage as a result of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) can have some of their inactive ne... ... middle of paper ... ... conclusion, stem cells show great potential as pluripotent cells that can mimic the task of specialized cells throughout the body. Due to the numerous amount of genetic diseases in our society that have yet to have a cure, stem cell research must be furthered implored to make necessary advancements in the field of medicine despite the potentially harmful effects it can have to the human embryo. With this being said, the solution is that stem cells should be primarily obtained through the aborted in vitro fertilization. So stem cells don’t have to be extracted from living embryos, which means this process doesn’t have to be linked with abortion. This is good on both sides of the debate: the groups against stem cells research argue that killing an embryo doesn’t justify saving another life, while still satisfying the scientist that want to research stem cells.
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.
...ting embryos specifically for stem cell research should not be allowed. Continued stem cell research will benefit all of mankind with its promise of medical advances. Opponents’ concerns about destroying human life will be quelled because stem cells will be taken from already doomed embryos. The federal government will be able to regulate the research and ensure that it is lawfully conducted.
The extraction of embryonic stem cells involves destroying an early embryo, which means killing a potential future human being. Is killing a future human being necessary to save the currently living? The process of extracting embryonic stem cells requires abortion. The abortion is performed in an early stage where the cell mass has not developed a system capable of detecting pain or emotion. Embryonic stem cells can be found in the interior portion of an embryo, known as the “inner cell mass”. The inner cell mass is capable of making every type of cell in the body. Initially, the cells do not serve a specific function. When stem cells are exposed to an environment of other cells such as skin, or neural cells, they “morph” into the surrounding structure. When placed in damaged tissue, embryonic stem cells repair the damaged cells.
The importance of embryonic stem cells rests in their lack of specialization. These basic cells are present in the earliest stages of developing embryos and are able to develop into virtually any type of cell and tissue in the body. Being self-renewing, they offer a potentially limitless source of cells and tissue. (Tucker)
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.
...ceptable, who believe it is not acceptable, and who question the personhood, life, and value of an embryo. Although there is no concise decision about the morality of stem cell research, that does not excuse it. Every human being, whether an embryo, a fetus, a newborn, five year old child, or adult, has an undeniable intrinsic value regardless of what individuals like Sandel and Glick say. This value of human life should not be intentionally destroyed by any means, or else it is immoral. Within embryonic stem cell research, a human life is being destroyed and devalued. Although these stem cells are being used to find cures and therapies for diseases and aid the medical world, these ends do not justify the means. Instead of spending time and money on an immoral act research should be done on adult stem cells since human life is not interrupted or destroyed this way.
As stated on the Neostem website, “Stem cells have remarkable potential to develop into many different cell types in the body during early life and growth.” They are used for cell therapeutics and the advantages are many. They offer a source of renewable cells to replace the damaged or dead cells that can be cause disabilitating ...
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 cells are located deep down in our bone marrow. They have the incredible ability of “generating an endless supply of red cells, white cells, and platelets”(1). They have been called the “Mother of all blood cells” due to their ability to regenerate the entire blood supply of a persons body. Just to think that this is possible is actually pretty incredible. The man who claims to be responsible for the discovery of this gem is a immunologist from Stanford University named Irving Weissman, and his collaborators at SyStemix, (a biotech company that he cofounded in 1988, located in Palo Alto, CA). He and his company are so confident about these cells, not only have they obtained a government patent on the process by which these specific cells are separated from other cells, they have also patented the cells themselves. They have even convinced Sandoz Ltd. (a giant Swiss drug-and-chemical company) to purchase 60 percent of the stock for SyStemix for a reported 392 million dollars.
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.
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.
One of the most spoken of topic in the past four decades, are the advancements in genetic engineering. Stem cells were discovered in the mid-1800s and the subject of experimentation in the early 1900s, it’s only been in recent decades that they’ve truly caught the imagination of medical researchers and the public. Today, our understanding of these cells is expanding dramatically, and research has proliferated, as their potential is becoming clearer and clearer. Research into stem cells grew out of findings by Ernest A. McCulloch and James E. Till at the University of Toronto in the 1960s. “And the remarkable thing about the discovery itself is that we’re just starting to realize the potential of stem cells for medicine. In the 1960s, scientists recognized that Drs. Till and McCulloch’s discovery was important, but I don’t think anyone could have imagined that more than 45 years down the road their work would still be laying the basis for new ideas, new strategies, even new research institutes built around the concept of stem cells.” says Dr. Bob Phillips, Deputy Director of OICR and a former colleague of Till and McCulloch’s at the Ontario Cancer Institute.”[4]
Stem cell research should be allowed on adults but not on humans. Only allowed on humans who are willing to be a part of the stem cell research but no one should be used against their own will. Embryos should not be used for embryonic stem cell research. An embryo being used for their stem cells and then discarded devalues that human life. This follows along the same unethical issue as abortion. When stem cells are removed from human embryos, a unique individual dies. However, if abortion is legal in the state that this research is conducted than research may be conducted on only aborted fetuses. That would be an...
Embryonic stem cell research is unethical and should be discontinued. Mark S. Moller opens his article by saying, “The first one concerns the debate over the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act (H.R. 810), passed by the United States Congress in 2005 and 2007, and vetoed by President Bush both times.” Embryonic stem cells is not the only means to obtain stem cells. There are alternate methods for obtaining stem cells. Other methods include: adult stem cell from bone marrow and cord blood stem cells. An article written by Bernard Lo and Lindsey Parham addresses two alternate methods for obtaining stem cells. It says, “Adult stem cells and cord blood stem cells do not raise special ethical concerns and are widely used in research and clinical care.” To avoid the ethical dilemma of destroying a fetal life for the lives of other people, adult stem cells and cord blood stem cells could be implemented instead. If other methods could be used, then there should be no reason to continue destroying lives for stem cell research. Embryonic stem cell research is unethical and should, therefore, be