Embryonic Stem Cell Research And Current Use

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,

“Embryonic stem cell research will prolong life, improve life, and give hope for life to millions of people,” said politician Jim Ramstad. This is a very powerful statement, and a very accurate statement. The solution to curing many diseases is just around the corner because of the advancements in embryonic stem cell research. The much needed support of society can speed up the progression of this research so lives can start to be saved. Embryonic stem cell research should be pursued because it has the potential to help or even cure many diseases, shows more promise than adult stem cells, and is morally ethical.

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.

While embryonic stem cell research has been ongoing for more than 30 years, it has only become a controversial topic over the past decade. The embryonic stem cell was first isolated in 1981 by two scientists at the University of Cambridge. However, it wasn’t until 1998 at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, where the first batch of embryonic stem cells were created in a test tube. In 2001, President George W. Bush approved the use of federal funding for research on this topic, following this action the stem cell controversy has been developing. The controversy around this topic focuses heavily on the ethical portion of stem cell research rather than the scientific evidence. Stem cell research has shown great promise for potentially

Embryonic stem cell research is widely controversial in the scientific world. Issues on the ethics of Embryonic Stem (ES) cell research have created pandemonium in our society. The different views on this subject are well researched and supportive. The facts presented have the capability to support or possibly change the public’s perspective. This case study is based on facts and concerns that much of the research done on embryonic stem cells is derived from human embryos. This case study will provide others with a more in depth view of both sides of this great debate.

Embryonic stem cell (ESC) research has caused great amounts of controversy for at least fifty years. This debate tears at the roots of our nation’s morals and ethics. Lawmakers must ask themselves if the unethical research on embryos is worth never finding a cure for diseases that have killed millions of people. While Congress has made many decisions regarding this topic, it seemed to be impossible to please both sides of the controversy; however, with recent decisions and new research, common ground has become more possible to obtain.

One of the biggest problems that biomedical scientists struggle with today is finding a cure to cancer. Thousands of scientists across the world devote their time and resources to solving this puzzle and saving thousands of lives. Over the last few decades, technology and medicine has advanced significantly increasing the life expectancy of the average human life. However, further steps need to be taken to achieve what doctors and scientists have set out to accomplish. In order to do this, many believe that embryonic stem cell research could be the key to unlocking a variety of medical problems. However, in the early 2000’s, the United States saw a significant decrease in federal funding available for this research. This could set back the medical advances by years if researchers could not continue their work. A decrease in restrictions while increasing federal funding for embryonic stem cell research is vital for taking steps forward in ethically finding cures for many injuries and diseases that affect millions of people every day.

Embryonic stem cells research is the most debated type of stem cell research. The moral standings of embryonic stem cell research have been debated since the research started. The side against the research claims that it is wrong to value one’s life above another and that the elimination of the most basic form of life is murder. While the side supporting the research claims that the research could bring about the cure for many types of diseases and help save the lives of millions. Embryonic stem cells are controversial because of how they are obtained and used. While the two sides argue over whether it is moral or not, they both agree that adult stem cells have potential without the moral dilemma.

Once the stem cells are derived from either the In Vitro Fertilization embryo, or the aborted fetus they are then put into a cell culture where they can grow. If the cells stay alive during this time period they are sent to other laboratories for research.

Once the stem cells are derived from either the In Vitro Fertilization embryo, or the aborted fetus they are then put into a cell culture where they can grow. If the cells stay alive during this time period they are sent to other laboratories for research.

Human embryo’s and stem cell research has always been a controversial issue throughout society. Some believe that stem cell research promises future cures for many incurable diseases, whereas others believe that it is immortal to produce human embryo’s that are ultimately going to be thrown away and used as biological material. The nature of the embryonic stem cell debate is whether or not humanity should proceed with destroying human embryos for reasons such as learning about human development, discovering medical treatments, and testing drugs for pharmaceutical companies. Embryonic stem cell research poses two moral problems including the duty to prevent or eliminate suffering, and the duty to respect the value of human life. This essay will show the Natural Law’s views on this topic as well as the opposing views of Utilitarianism.

Embryonic Stem Cell is when you have to destroy the egg inside, thus rendering that egg to become a human. The Stem Cell is put into a petri dish where it will be cultured and feed nutrients (Bethesda). The Stem Cell is almost like a blank code, It can replenish a part of the body that is hurt or has a disease (Bigloo). Stem cells can be programed any where in the body to fix the issue. When the stem cell divides it will keep producing till the part of the body is back to normal (Bethesda). Stem cells can be program as muscle cells, a red blood cell, or even a brain cell. This amazing discovery has only been around for 40 years (Bigloo). Scientist have only sractch the surface on finding out what they can really do with embryonic stem cell research. In America Stem Cell Research has been ridiculed and looked down at. Religious and different political parties though say its morally unethical, that the scientist are “playing god” and those fertilized eggs don’t have a choice to live or die. Embryonic stem cell have shown to help fight almost 70 top diseases in the world. In the next following year possibly erasing them from the face of the earth. Stem cell research is the way of the future it can so many people that are on the brink of death. This discussion has been going on since stem cell research was founded 40 years a ago.

"Stem cell research is the key to developing cures for degenerative conditions like Parkinson's and motor neuron disease from which I and many others suffer. The fact that the cells may come from embryos is not an objection, because the embryos are going to die anyway."

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.