Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Debate over government funding of stem cell research
Stem cell research
Stem cell research
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Debate over government funding of stem cell research
Imagine someone afflicted with a spinal cord injury, who led an active life before becoming quadriplegic. Now, he spends his days in a wheelchair, depending on a portable ventilator and the help of others to survive on a daily basis. The well-known actor Christopher Reeve suffered this exact scenario, speaking out for the necessity of stem cell research for diseases like his until his death. Given the clear essentiality of embryonic stem cell research to our progression as a medically and humanely advanced society, actions must be taken to encourage its development. The U.S. government should promote stem cell research by increasing federal funding of private research, legalizing certain methods of embryonic stem cell extraction, and educating …show more content…
Under the Obama administration, a previous Bush regulation restricting funding of stem cell research to only 21 embryonic lines was overturned, expanding the number to 75 (Mears 1). While this is a shift in the right direction, it remains insufficient on its own; the government must further increase the budget allotted to the National Institutes of Health in order for labs to access more resources, as well as promote communication and cooperation between research centers. Stem cell laboratories require many pieces of sophisticated equipment including tissue incubators, clinical grade centrifuges, specialized microscopes, cryogenic freezers, and vivariums (Wesselschmidt 1). In order to obtain the most accurate and ideal results, researchers must have access …show more content…
Even if scientists receive more public funding from the U.S. government, they remain banned from using cloning methods to produce human embryos as a source for stem cells (Abraham 1). However, researchers at MIT have recently developed a method of using cloning to produce genetically modified embryos, which are unable to fully develop into fetuses (Abraham 1). This technique allows for the harvesting of differentiable pluripotent stem cells, analogous to those collected from the inner cell mass of the viable embryo; however, there is no destruction of a life form because a cloned embryos has no capacity to ever become a fetus. In addition to exploring the cloning method, scientists also use the morula method, by which a cell is removed from a developing embryo at the morula stage (Green 18). There is already a precedent for the use of this method in pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), since “it is highly likely that removing a cell or two will not result in the death of the embryo because it any cell removed can be replaced by the remaining cells” due to cell fate not yet being determined at the morula stage (Green 18). By allowing publicly funded researchers to use these new extraction techniques, the government would promote the growth of the embryonic stem cell field
“Federal Funds Should Not Be Used for Research That Destroys Embryos.” Stem Cells. Jacqueline Langwith. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2012. Opposing Viewpoints.
Could you imagine being able to create new organs, tissues, muscles, and even food? With embryonic stem cell technology, believe it or not, these things are possible. Stem cells are the body's raw materials. Specifically, they are cells from which all other cells with specialized functions are generated. Under the right conditions in the body or in a laboratory, stem cells can divide to form more cells called daughter cells. These daughter cells either become new stem cells or turn into specialized cells with a more specific function, such as blood cells, brain cells, muscle cells or bone cells. The possibilities are almost endless. The debate and main issue with this technology is that the actual stem cells come from embryos. Embryos are an unborn or unhatched offspring in the process of development. Although there is controversy surrounding these cells, embryonic stem cells should continue to be researched and used, because they have so much potential.
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.
" An Overview of Stem Cell Research | The Center for Bioethics & Human Dignity."
Over the past decade scientist and the U.S government have been debating about funds for stem cell research (SCR), the amount spent depends on who is in office. The Democratic Party fully supports SCR, but the Republican Party somewhat opposes the concept of SCR, arfuing it violates the Christian principle of life. As a result, this topic is considered controversial, but also beneficial if allowed. Despite the controversy, SCR should be well funded for medicinal use, because blank stem cells (SC) can be used to regenerate bones and muscle tissue, they can be used to control or even reverse neurodegenerative disease, and because they can be used for therapeutic cloning.
Currently, the limitations on research are too restricting, as researchers are limited to resources already gathered. There are sixty existing stem cell lines today, already derived from embryos. Researchers are to only use these lines. These limitations severely hinder stem cell research. The government, especially President Bush, should re-evaluate stem cell research.
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.
Imagine that there is a cure for nearly every ailment that affects the human race. Imagine that you could help the terminally ill, put those you love out of pain, and cut the healing time of an enormous number of serious illnesses in half. Imagine a world in which pain and suffering would be nearly nonexistent, and the people you love can live safe from the fear of crippling injury. Now what if I told you that this utopia was a fast approaching reality? Everything from serious life threatening burns to lymphoma, AIDS, Alzheimer’s, Muscular Dystrophy, Parkinson’s Disease, Spinal Cord Injury, and Strokes could, in the very near future, be eliminated through the simple culturing and implementation of stem cell therapy . These diseases are no small component of the myriad of conditions that plagues the human race, and yet, the end for these horrible maladies could very well be in sight. Man has always sought to end suffering, largely without success, until now. the promise that stem cell therapy holds could completely change our world for the better. Already, stem cell therapy is being used to treat leukemia, immune disorders, hodgkins and non-hodgkins lymphoma, anemia and a profusion of other ailments. As you all know, this is no small accomplishment. One day i believe that we may look at alzheimer's and diabetes and other major illnesses much like we look at polio today, as a treatable illness. Right now, our research with stem cells is providing us with new light into how we look at and model disease, our ability to understand why we get sick and even to develop new drugs. In 2008, a researcher from the New York Stem Cell Foundation Laborato...
What if there was a cure for cancer or a treatment for spinal injuries? Would you support the research? What if there was a way that you could repair damaged nerves. Some believe that stem cells may hold the answers to some of these questions. What are stem cells and why should you or I even care about them? Some believe that they are a miracle treatment waiting to happen while others believe that stem cells are highly immoral. Why does so much controversy surround the issue? Why is the conversation of stem cells feared by some and praised by others? To some stem cells are the medical hopes for the future, something for us to hang on to as we do battle with major diseases that include cancer, Parkston’s disease and spinal injuries. To others stem cell researchers are murderers who are trying to play God’s hand. A many have pledged their support to stem cell research including a few well known celebrities. Reeves’, who was best known for his role in the early Superman movies, and J. Fox two well-known celebrities, have pledged to stem cell research, both have created a private fund for the research of stem cells. This celebrity however has not swayed everyone to support stem cell researches cause. Just as there are supporters of stem cells there are those who believe that the use of stem cells is immoral. Since the first stem cells were separated there have been doctors, religious groups and even some political figure head have shown their opposition for stem cell research. Even with the knowledge and promise that stem cells show many of those who truly oppose stem cells have not changed their mind. The question is are their reasons good enough to halt the research of stem cell or are they just holding back what will soon be inevi...
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...
How many of you hear the words “genetically modified food” and immediately think “BAD”? How many of you scorn the idea that genetically modified foods are useful? How many of you have been manipulated by the media to think that all biotechnology is evil? Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are organisms that have been genetically spliced to achieve a certain trait. As the demand for a larger food supply is increasing due to population growth, the benefits that GMO foods provide are being hailed as the only solution to the food crisis. However, many people are making inadequately informed decisions, and are pushing them to the back shelf. I will inform you on why genetically modified organisms may be the only way to a stable, safe future for the less fortunate.
Over the past years, stem cell research has been very famous through the scientific community and the media. Stem cells are pluripotent cells that are present in every single organism on Earth. The power of stem cells are beyond imagination. Stem cells have the power to turn into any type of cells. Some examples are, blood cells, nerves, cardiac muscles, and the list goes on and on. The scientific community has recently taken a large interest in stem cells. They have used stem cells to treat horrible misfortunes that people have been diagnosed with. Some examples of the diseases that are being treated by the use of stem cells are, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, spinal cord issues, strokes, diabetes, damaged organs, and even cancer! However, despite the infinite potential for medical treatments, the topic of stem cells is surrounded by enormous amounts of controversy. The questions that feed the controversy are about how the stem cells are acquired and about how the gained knowledge would be used. However, it is necessary for mankind to keep stem cell research alive in order to save lives while taking care of any unethical topics about it.
By this time tomorrow, 12 people in America who are alive right now will be dead.
Kids are meant to be happy, play outside, go to school, and have fun. They aren’t meant to sit in hospitals, losing weight by the pound, carrying around IV poles filled with poison. It’s ridiculous and immature that we don’t have a cure for childhood cancer. The only “treatment” that we have is chemotherapy- a chemical that seems to help fight off cancer. Chemo doesn’t just fight off cancer cells though- it fights off healthy cells in your blood, mouth, digestive system, and hair follicles. The most frustrating thing about childhood cancer is that only 4% of federal funding is exclusively dedicated to childhood cancer research. It is true that more adults get diagnosed with cancer than kids, but does that mean that adults are 96% more important than children? The average age of diagnosis for an adult with cancer is age 67, and the average number of years lost is 15. 15 years are definitely many years, but not that many compared to the average number of years lost for a child- 71. Also, age 67 is a lot older than the average age of diagnoses for a child- age 6. At least the adults get to grow up and have the ability to even have cancer- some of these kids can’t even get through a fifth of their lives.
Anderson, Ryan. "Stem Cells: A Political History." First Things. First Things, November, 2008. Web. 10 Feb 2012.