Embryo Based Stem Cell Research

Imagine a world free from disease. The idea of a utopian society has been far from reality until the research from embryonic stem cell therapy surfaced. Since former president George W. Bush banned federal funding on embryonic stem cell research in 2001 it has caused a halt in advancements and caused controversy in the public. According to an article by Beau Watts, an accredited physician; embryonic stem cells are pluripotent cells (Beau Watts). This means they have not decided what function they perform yet. Since the cells do not know the function, it can be determined by scientists. As described in the “Guidelines for the conduct of human embryonic research” by the international stem cell society; medical professionals can take an embryonic stem cell and “reprogram” it to eliminate the disease. Today 2,200 people died from heart disease (American heart association). Heart disease is only one of many diseases that can be cured by embryonic stem cell research. Religious and/or conservative groups now condemn the research, for multiple reasons. Embryonic stem cells are donated by patients of in-vitro fertilization. After a “round” of IVF, they can choose to donate, freeze, or discard their leftover embryos. Embryos contain two layers, it is the innermost layer that contains the cells used in embryonic stem cell research (Society for stem cell research). It is very important to know that, the embryos that could be used in the research are donated upon request of the patient.

The transfer of information, often shared through scientific reports and research, puts this topic in a highly international spotlight. Many supporters believe that stem cells will be able to help solve once untreatable diseases or injuries such as spinal cord injuries, skin burns, Parkinson’s disease, and some blood disorders. However, the main argument is if stem cells should be used in finding therapeutic treatments. The use of embryonic stem cells is viewed by many as a moral inconsistency; it is opposed by religious organizations and individuals believing that this research should be abandoned and existing, alternative methods be adapted.

Embryonic cells should be allowed to be used because of the medical benefits they provide. They can be used to cure diseases such as Parkinson’s disease, diabetes, traumatic spinal cord injury, Duchenne’s muscular dystrophy, heart disease, and even vision and hearing loss (nih.gov 2009). There is no problem using them for medical purposes and it is not immoral to use them for this reason. Embryonic cells have the potential to save lives. Therefore, the usage of embryonic cells outweighs the ethical issues.

Through change and uttermost struggle, the people who care about a subject always seem to push through for what they believe in. For the sake of Embryonic Stem Cell research, the advocates tried their best to show the advancements stem cells may withhold, and for the people who disagree with the research, always seemed to put a new light on the subject, simply humanizing the research. Although the destruction of a human embryo is not something many people would view as ethical, it is something that could hold much promise for those who suffer from terminal illnesses (Sherley). When the miracle of assisting those who could not reproduce children through In Vitro Fertilization transpired the world of stem cell research was acquired (Tauer 924).

The importance of ethical issues is often understated in public knowledge. Embryonic stem cell research should be of the utmost importance in the American society due to increased federal funding and the promises research in this field hold. As with many other controversies, embryonic stem cell research can be described as a dispute between religion and science due to the destruction of a viable human embryo. Depending on the status an individual grants an embryo will likely determine their stance on the issue. Next, many changes in legality and public acceptance have prompted leaders to increase funding and expand research nationally. Since taxpayers’ dollars are at work, the public should be aware of this prevalent and advancing ethical issue and be informed of its specifics. The public should also be aware of the advancements in healthcare that this research promise. Due to the changes in funding and legality, many discoveries have been made, pushing this science further. Many scientists believe embryonic stem cell research holds the key to curing many bodily injuries and deadly diseases such as spinal cord and brain injuries, Alzheimer’s, and Parkinson’s. Also, many scientists conceive that, in the future, it will be possible to “grow” human organs from an individual’s stem cells for transplantation. The latter are only a few of the plethora of anticipated and promised treatments research in this field holds. Lastly,

Christopher Reeve, better known as superman, was not only an actor, but also an athlete and an adventurer. On two separate occasions, he flew an airplane sole across the Atlantic Ocean. On Memorial Day weekend in 1995, Chris rode his horse, Buck, to the starting box of a cross-country race in Virginia. Chris had trained and raced horses for almost ten years, so he felt the course ahead of him would be easy. But what Chris did not see coming was just as he and Buck approached the third jump, Buck would come to a sudden stop, sending Chris over the jump. He landed directing on his head, fracturing two vertebrae in his neck. From that day on, he was completely paralyzed. At the time, there was no known treatment, no medication, and no surgery to fix his damaged spine. For the rest of his days, Chris raised money and awareness for research into spinal cord injuries. One of the topics he pushed for was embryonic stem cell research. Christopher Reeve died on October 10th, 2004, never fulfilling his goal to walk again. But if he had gotten the support and funding for stem cell research, his story might have ended differently. Embryonic stem cell research should be funded in the U.S because it could lead to the treatment to many diseases, there are other sources of stem cells, but they are limited to their use, and the eight-celled blastocysts cannot grow any further to form a baby, so it is not harming living human beings.

The ethics of research involving fetuses or material derived from fetuses have been widely debated for over three decades, portrayed by its proponents as holding the key to scientific and medical breakthrough and by its opponents as devaluing the most basic form of human life. The latest chapter in this long saga involves the use of embryonic stem cells. Research in this field took a great leap forward in 1998, when the first successes in growing human stem cells in culture were reported independently by Drs. James Thomson and John Gearhart. According to the National Institutes of Health, embryonic stem cell research "promises...possible cures for many debilitating diseases and injuries, including Parkinson 's disease, diabetes, heart disease, multiple sclerosis, burns, and spinal cord injuries. The NIH believes the potential medical benefits of human pluripotent stem cell technology are compelling and worthy of pursuit in accordance with appropriate ethical standards (National Institutes of Health 2000). Research in this new and developing field has sparked controversy centered on the moral implications of destroying human embryos and poses several compelling ethical questions. Among them: Does life begin at fertilization, in the womb, or at birth? Might the destruction of a single human embryo be justified if it can alleviate the pain and suffering of many patients?

Research into embryonic stem cells holds a lot of promise thanks to its recognized potential to treat a wide range of conditions such as physical trauma, degenerative conditions, and genetic diseases. However, human embryonic stem cell research is a controversial issue for many as the creation of embryonic stem cell line requires the destruction of a human embryo. This ethical dilemma has resulted in research being held back as the debate rages on rather it’s right to use embryos in research. Despite this, embryonic stem cell research should be allowed to continue because of its potential.

Incurable and degenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, and cancer cause death of millions of people annually. Scientists use drugs to treat symptoms, but they don’t have effective therapies for cure these diseases. Embryonic stem cells have treatment potential due to their pluripotent characteristic, which means that they can develop into any cell of the human body. Some people oppose embryonic stem cell research since they think it violates human rights and thus should not be allowed to pursue. However, embryonic stem cell research is ethical since five-day-old embryos lack most of the human characteristics, embryonic stem cells have the potential to cure degenerative diseases, and they are better to other kinds

There has been a controversial debate on whether or not embryonic stem cell research should be morally justified if it leads to the enhancement of treatments for acute and chronic diseases. Stem cell research is important because it leads to new potentials for regenerative therapies and treatments for diseases such as blindness, spinal cord injuries, and myocardial infarctions. In addition, stem cell research allows scientists to learn their fundamental properties and what makes them different from adult stem cells. In this essay, I will investigate the differentiation between adult stem cells (somatic stem cells) and embryonic stem cells. I will discuss the potential benefits of embryonic stem cells and the process of harvesting these embryos. Furthermore, I will examine the moral status of the human embryo based on rationality and when the embryo takes on human form. In this essay, I plan to accomplish that embryonic stem cells are scientifically more beneficial than adult stem cells because

With the advent of a wide variety of scientific advances in the medical field, especially those improvements in health-related fields, the quality of life for the earth’s inhabitants has improved greatly over the past century. Scientists continue to improve upon current knowledge and expand the field of medicine. Over the past few years, scientists have performed significant research pertaining to the study of stem cells. Many researchers see potential in the manipulation of stem cells - possible treatments for currently incurable diseases such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s (Goldstein). With these new discoveries, though, questions as to the morality of such practices arise. While few find an

Embryonic stem cells research has challenged the moral ethics within human beings simply because the point at which one is considered a “human,” is still under debate and practically incapable to make a decision upon.

The issue at discussion in this report is ESCR (embryonic stem cell research) and current use. This issue causes controversial concerns because the first isolation of the embryo was in 1998, which is still very recent and the policies around it are grey areas. Many countries including the United States of America have removed funding because of issues that have risen due to religious, ethical and legal formalities. Some of the benefits that ESC (embryonic stem cells) promise are the cure for many diseases and even the creation of organs between other scientific advances that could save numerous lives. The benefits that ESC could provide are sometimes questioned to be worth all the ethical issues that they bring. Some

Contrarily, supporters of embryonic stem cell research argue that such research should be pursued because the resultant treatments could have significant medical potential. In addition, leftover embryos could be given with permission and

Most cells have a specific type of function, bone cells give strength and support, adipose cells store fat. However, stem cells don’t have a specific type of function, this is one of the things that makes them so versatile. They have the ability to form into many different types of cells since they are unspecialized.