Stem Cell Research Argumentative Essay

Stem cell research has been quite a controversial topic since its origin in the 1960s by Gopal Das and Joseph Altman. Of course, anything that uses a human embryo would be. Stem cell research could open a vast number of new doors for modern science, it could let us test new drugs, one of which could be the unfound cure for AIDS or Alzheimer’s disease. However, this branch of science comes at a high price, the price of a human life that is only five to six days

In preparation for this thesis on the topic of stem research and application; I gathered data through various methods to reach a broad consensus on the public impression of stem cell research. In this chapter I will discuss the findings of those ventures and the impressions it made on my research. I conducted a survey asking general information on the public’s knowledge of stem cell research and held a classroom forum asking for open opinions on 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

Reagan watched as her husband’s disease began to incapacitate him and knew she had to push harder to find a possible treatment. The search led her to Stem Cell Research. She prayed that one day someone would find a cure. Unfortunately, there were a lot of people who are against stem cell research. In the early 2000’s, the nation of public funding for Embryonic Stem-Cell research was controversial and divisive, with many Republicans tying the issue to abortion. (parenthetical citation article STAT article written by Shelia Kaplan 3/6/16). While Mrs. Reagan was at a Juvenile Diabetes event, she took advantage of the opportunity to speak out about how science is giving us some hope with stem cell research. Proceeding full steam ahead, Nancy took influence all the way to the White House. In 2001, she wrote to President George W. Bush, who opposed harvesting cells from discarded human embryos – and her words seemed to have made a difference. (parenthetical citation – article written by Sheila Kaplan 3/6/16). President Bush changed his mind and did not ban Stem Cell Research funding, but he did put restrictions on it. Once again a road block presented itself. The federal legislation was trying to block state funding, but is was Nancy back at the plate. She called many lawmakers to make sure there were no obstructions going forward. Nancy educated the public on where the cells come from, how they are kept, and how they are

In our government today Congress, the Supreme Court, and the President are all faced with making tough decisions for our country. These decisions are not only decided based off the constitution but the ideological shift as generations go on. Possibly one of the most controversial landmark decisions the government is currently being challenged with is the affair of abortion. In 1973 the Supreme Court of the United States was presented the case of Roe v Wade. The ruling decided a person has the right to privacy protected by the due process clause of the 14th amendment. This gave women the right to decide to have an abortion, but only under regulations from the state. As a result of this case, scientific research was conducted on stem cells starting in 1978 when a scientist discovered stem cells in human cord blood. From 1981 to 1991 scientist tested stem cells in mice, hamsters, and later in primates. 1998 marked an important discovery of pluripotent stem cells in an embryo, which is where the problem lies between the morals and ethics of citizens and the politicians’ jobs to decide for the people what is right for stem cell research.

Embryonic stem cell research has been a highly controversial topic for several years. The question of how far science is supposed to push human life has many sides, each warring against each other. In 2010, in the Sherley v. Sebelius case, allowing research involving human embryonic cells was brought into question once again, after Presidents Bush and Obama had dealt with the matter in previous years. At the end of the case in April of 2011, The District Court of Appeals decided to overturn the preliminary injunction, which actually had allowed federal funding the research experimenting with human embryos to continue. While this case was closed, the topic still is not. Stem cell research as a whole faces judgement from many who think it is

For Embryonic Stem Cell research, the issue of the destruction of a human embryo fell to the Pro-Life, Pro-Choice issue (Monitoring 487). In addition to the controversy, the current leaders of the United States (at the time) stepped in with legislature either allowing or halting the federal funding opportunities for Embryonic Stem Cells. From executive orders, to Supreme Court cases, the stem cells had formed a new argument and dinner table conversation for many individuals of the United States (White). Through many forms of language that spoke volumes for the research advocated for one side or the other, federal funding for or against. The federal funding issue is arguably the only distinct roadblock for the research, as it is the only form of legislature in place for the research (Tauer 927). From the 1980s when the issue grew from fertilization assistant for an everyday family to the 2000s when speeches, party politics, and medical reform became an essential part of the Embryonic Stem Cells ability to do what they do best, cure. Through the new forms of language for this topic from executive orders to speeches and court cases, the topic was changing, without the growth in

A mother has developed Alzheimer’s, preventing her from having a normal relationship with her family. A newly born baby girl has a spinal cord issue, making for many years of rehabilitation ahead her. A diabetic wife struggles to take care of her household duties because of constantly having to monitor her blood sugar and deal with insulin shots. With the development of stem cell research, and the more controversial embryonic stem cell research, every one of these instances could not only be cured, but prevented, within the next half century. In fact, diseases that are predicted to be treated by means of stem cell research are figured to now plague the likes of 100 million Americans. Looking at the arguments dealing with stem cell

research; conservatives and pro-choice activists are highly against further research, but the tremendous advances in health care and President Bush’s recent decision to fund more

Abortion, gay marriage, and illegal immigration are all hot button topics currently being faced by Americans. As ardently as each side defends their stance on a controversial issue, an opposing side fights with equal diligence for the beliefs they feel should be valued by our nation. Perhaps nowhere is this battle more heated than in the fight over stem cell research. While supporters of this new field of science tout it’s potential to cure everything from blindness to paralysis, those against stem cell science liken the procedures used by scientists to murder. It is my intention to bring to light the positive benefits of stem cell research as well as counter the claims used by many Pro-life groups who believe the scientists driving this

In 2009, President Obama ended the ban on stem cell research, stating “medical miracles do not happen simply by accident.” Scientists are very pleased with this decision made by the President, including Dr. Clive Svendsen, who stated: “Freeing up the embryonic stem cells through the lifting of this injunction will allow us to use federal support and money, and move clinical trials must faster to patients. So this is why it 's an important day.” American citizens are as well. A poll was held in 2004, asking Americans if they support medical research using HESCs, to which only about 50% said they approved. The same question was asked in 2007, in which that percentage was raised to about 65% approving. These statistics clearly show that Americans want advances in medicine to be made with HESCs.

While some people might say that stem cell research is immoral and unethical, others believe that it is a magical solution for almost any problem, thus leading to a very controversial issue. Scientists have been searching for years for ways to eradicate incurable diseases and perform other medical procedures that yesterday's technology would not fix. With the rapidly arising, positive research on stem cell technology, the potential that exists to restore any deficiency is in the same way, likely to destroy humanity. America is suffering from its inability to choose who holds precedence over this issue. Too many of us find it impossible to reach a basis for which our differing opinions can be shared and formed into a universal and

Research on stem cells is knowledge constantly being explored about how an organism evolves from a single cell and how cells in good condition are put in place of cells that no longer work. The outcome that is anticipated from doing this research is that if scientist can fine tune stem cells into regular cells like blood or heart muscles and put it back into the body, then possibly they may find a cure for some of the widespread diseases that exist in our world today such as diabetes, leukemia, and many more by replacing those weak cells with youthful cells. Eventually this research might lead to realistic, reasonably priced ways to get rid of many diseases through DNA engineering but is it really worth

The opponents of embryonic stem cells stick to the belief that destroying one human’s life to save and cure others is not worth it because it makes you wonder, where will the line be drawn? Can the killing and experimentation of homeless people, for example, be justified by the possibility of saving a few Alzheimer’s patients’ lives? Will the world allow the destruction of the elderly just to save the younger generation? The opponents of embryonic stem cells realize that if the world begins using embryonic stem cells to make everyone healthier, than there is no telling what the world is willing to sacrifice in order for them to survive and if the world does go down that path, who gets to decide who deserves to live or die? (“Using Embryos is Immoral”). The destructive view that the world has towards embryonic stem cells is made evident not only by the ongoing debate about whether or not embryonic stem cells should be used but also by the restriction placed on embryonic

The controversial topic of stem cell research has been a controversial topic for a very long time. In 2001, George Bush severely restricted government-funded stem cell research. In 2009, Barack Obama allowed it. The order says that National Institutes of health can produce new procedures and policies in which the money can be used. On August 23, 2010, a federal judge issued an order blocking all research of stem-cells, including that allowed even when Bush was president. On July 27, 2011, Royce Lamberth, Chief judge of the federal court in Washington, D.C., said that stem cells could be used for life-threatening diseases. The Court of Appeals agreed with this, and the case was brought to a close (Stem cell policy).