As modern medicine advances humankind is making incredible discoveries in cell regeneration. Studies of regenerative medicine have been encouraged to work towards replacing degenerate human cells to restore full functionality to the tissue or organ concerned, however these practices are unethical and immoral as they go against the very basis of life. Regenerative medicine involves harvesting stem cells, then differentiating them in order to create specialised cells. Stem cells are defined as undifferentiated cells with the ability to give rise to more cells of the same type and form specific cells through differentiation, and so are harvested from bone marrow, umbilical cord blood, peripheral blood and embryos. The stem cells are then differentiated, …show more content…
This prolongs life and goes against nature and natural consequences. Going against nature can lead to many unforeseen consequences such as evolutionary and ecospherical detriment. As humans become stronger, we cause more damage to the earth such as increasing greenhouse gases causing global warming. Until humans learn to be less destructive, this research should not continue. This human tampering will create negative consequences as we increase the rate at which we evolve, becoming too fast for the Earth to sustain us. As Jeremy Rifkin said in an argument against scientist playing god, “The resacralization of nature stands before us as the great mission of the coming age.” and “we ought to let nature be.” (Peters, 2009) In addition the allowance of replacing worn out organs and tissues encourages the irresponsibility of humans. By giving them a second chance with life humans feel that they can be reckless, partaking in activities detrimental to their health such as excessive drinking and drug abuse. If a person destroys their body in the process of participating in detrimental activities they can always just get their organs replaced, contributing further to humans’ destructive behaviour, in turn negatively affecting our behaviour and our environment. Scientists taking life into their own hands and going against nature will encourage reckless behaviour further causing detriment to our
For the past few years stem cell research has been a widely debated topic; however, former President Clinton?s stance?allowing federal money to be spent on tightly controlled stem cell research?lead to intense debates over federal funding for stem cell research. There are four ways of obtaining stem cells, which are taken from embryos that are approximately one week old. They are using unwanted embryos from fertility clinics, embryos from aborted fetuses, cloned embryos, and embryos created for research purposes. Stem cells can also be taken out of adult bone marrow, but scientists do not think that adult stem cells hold as much medical potential. Conservatives are against federal funding for stem cell research because they feel that by doing such the government would be contributing to ?murder.? This idea is rooted in the religious beliefs, which include the belief that life begins at conception, held by conservatives. However, liberals support federal funding for the research of embryos because they question whether embryos are full human beings and believe the research could expedite potential medical breakthroughs.
Stem cells can be thought of as blank slates or cells that have yet to become specialized. They can be transformed to become cells with special functions.
Stem cell therapy is a controversial topic that falls on the list of things not to discuss over thanksgiving dinner, very much like religion and politics. While the potential of stem cell research and therapy stand to make leaps of progression in cures for disease like Cancer and Alzheimer’s; Pros, Cons and morality still surround the issue.
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.
Stem cells are mother cells that have potential to develop into a new different cell in the body. It can self-renew or multiply while developing into other types of cells, for example they can become cells of the blood, heart, bones, skin, muscles and brain. Stem cells were discovered in human cord blood in 1978, and in 1998, Thompson, from the University of Wisconsin, isolated cells from the inner cell mass of early embryos (early stage of an animal or person before it is born) and developed t...
If we are not responsible for biotechnology and cloning, human nature can be altered into a new type of “human” or rather we will create something inhuman. Modern day biotechnology and cloning are advancing so quickly that it brings concern to human nature. With the rapid advancements, life may be able to be prolonged for eternity. Some argue that because cloning stem cells is beneficial to humanity, it is ethical.
A stem cell is a cell in the body that can differentiate into almost any other type of cell in the body. Stem cells come from sites in the bone marrow, as well as the tissues of developing fetuses. The most controversial issue in stem cell therapy is the use of fetuses for their stem cells. Scientists want to clone human embryos, and use the stem cells long before the embryo matures (when it is only about 36 cells). This causes a large amount of unease in society, because people fear that stem cells and therapeutic cloning will lead us into disgusting and horrible experimental practices, as well as therapies. Most people in America do not want this horrible vision of the future to come true, so they want all stem cell technology and research banned.
President Bush's limited federal funding of research relying on the destruction of human embryos violates federal statutory law. Christians have grieved for many years over the assault on unborn human life set loose upon our nation by the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision. Even that decision, however, did not affect all areas of law where lawmakers seek to protect developing human life. Because they are not covered by the Court's theory of reproductive privacy, human embryos outside the womb may be fully protected by law - and at least nine states have acted to protect these embryos from lethal experiments. In some states, destructive experimentation on human embryos is a felony.
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.
...oll(2010), around 33% of U.S. voters believe that taxpayers’ money should be spent on embryonic stem cell research and more than 50% of the voters disagree that taxpayers’ money should go the research(Roe, 2010). Hence, it is believed that government should not fund the stem cell research.
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.
Scientists follow the “three R’s”. The “three R’s” are replacement, reduction, and refinement. Scientists are trying to substitute experimental animals with other more ethical replacements (Monamy 5). Some alternatives are EPISKIN or EpiDerm, which are reconstructed models of the human epidermis that can be used in skin testing and experimentation (niehs). Another alternative product is artificial fake human eyes. Human tissues and cells can be developed and studied. Also, they have made the chicken eye test in which eyes are taken from slaughterhouses and used to identify chemical damage. Fortunately, the eyes are not useful and trashed at the slaughterhouses so scientists would only be helping the corporations out. There is also the Ames test which uses certain bacteria strains to perceive genetic changes rather than using animals’ genes (aavs). The second “r” is reduction, which means to reduce the number of animals being used. Scientists are continually repeating the same work over and over. There is too much unnecessary and repeated research being performed (Sherry 8). The third and final “r” is refinement, which means refinement of field and laboratory methods to lessen insensitivity and produce more valuable results (Monamy 5). Using the “three R’s”, scientists and researchers strive to use lifeless subjects or subjects that can feel no
Recent discoveries involving cloning have sparked ideas of cloning an entire human body (ProQuest Staff). Cloning is “the production of an organism with genetic material identical to that of another organism” (Seidel). Therapeutic cloning is used to repair the body when something isn’t working right, and it involves the production of new cells from a somatic cell (Aldridge). Reproductive cloning involves letting a created embryo develop without interference (Aldridge). Stem cells, if isolated, will continue to divide infinitely (Belval 6). Thoughts of cloning date back to the beginning of the twentieth century (ProQuest Staff). In 1938, a man decided that something more complex than a salamander should be cloned (ProQuest Staff). A sheep named Dolly was cloned from an udder cell in 1997, and this proved that human cloning may be possible (Aldridge). In 1998, two separate organizations decl...
Progression is a natural occurrence in human life as well as society. Natural curiosity, coupled with a desire for self improvement, has propelled mankind into the age of science and technology. As society progresses, so, too, does human life continue to advance and improve. Medical advances have allowed humans to overcome disease and illness, and ultimately prolog human life. For example, the success of stem cell research has granted doctors the resources to replace damaged cells and begin to repair severe injuries. The amount of scientific progress making its way into society is astounding. However, eventually the question emerges, how far should these advancements be allowed to continue? And at what point do humans bypass medical need to such advances and begin to strip themselves of their humanity? The question of how far humans should allow science to penetrate the natural makeup of humans is delicate, and not one that will result in an unanimous opinion. Yet, before humans can address this subject, they must question whether or not they have the right to alter nature to any extent.
The field of regenerative medicine encompasses numerous strategies, including the use of materials and de novo generated cells, as well as various combinations thereof, to take the place of missing tissue, effectively replacing it both structurally and functionally, or to contribute to tissue healing[29]