Embryonic Stem Cells Pros And Cons

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.

Most people are against Embryonic Stem Cell research mainly because they consider it unethical to use aborted fetuses for research. The two main issues concerning the research are the ethics (Cons) and the benefits (Pros). In any scientific case, ethics must always be considered. But the use of fetuses is something that is of the utmost importance. The costs are generally measured based off of people’s feelings, morals, and knowledge about the subject up for debate. The use of aborted fetuses for stem cell research may have many positive outcomes that can come of it, but many negative outcomes as well; If using aborted fetuses for research can, in the near future, save lives, then it is a research that should be supported, even though some

The research of human embryonic stem cells (hESC) is talked about a lot in the field of medical research, not just by the scientists, but also by politicians, religious groups, etc. The discovery of stem cells is known as a medical sensation, with its research having the potential to cure many diseases. But there are still ethical issues standing in the way of this research, and due to this, different parts of the world have different rules and regulations regarding the research of stem cells and their use in cellular therapy, and it is even illegal in a number of countries. Before I dive straight into the advantages and disadvantages of their use in cellular therapy, I should talk about the basics of hESC and how we can make them. Embryonic stem cells are pluripotent, i.e. they can differentiate into any type of cell in our body, and they can replicate indefinitely. We can create an embryonic stem cell line in more than one method, and most of them involve creating a fertilized egg (zygote), which eventually forms into a blastocyst. The inner cell mass of the blastocyst can be transferred onto a petri-dish containing a culture medium, where it is encouraged to divide. The diagram below illustrates this process.

We know that many have made expansive claims for the benefits of human embryo research. However, all such claims are conjectural. Embryonic stem cell research has not helped a single human patient or demonstrated any therapeutic benefit. At the same time, adult stem cells have helped hundreds of thousands of patients and new

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).

In 2001, President Bush emphasized “Embryonic stem cell research offers both great promise and great peril. So I have decided we must proceed with great care” (Bush). This decision not only halted the research but it forced new scientists and researchers to find new ways to use stem cells in an ethical way or they were basically forced out of the country to finish their progress. But in 2009, President Obama lifted this ban for stem cell research that Bush implemented. Although there is an amendment, the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, that still blocks funding for stem cell research that has to do with embryos. Along with Bush’s’ statement, the amendment pressured stem cell researchers to find new ways to get cells that are as pluripotent as the embryonic stem cells that come from the newly fertilized embryos. But the real question is how is the use of embryonic

stem cells were discovered a long ago that they can be beneficial for fighting against the killer diseases but after passing of two decades of the discovery it has been profound that (hESCs) are being tried as a treatment for two noteworthy illnesses: heart fail and type 1 diabetes.

Did you know that there are people who decides the fate of the future? Who gives human beings the right to play God? To decide who lives and who dies. There comes a time where we have to ask ourselves, how much of our lives will we let the government control? Embryonic stem cell research should be discontinued because our future is being decided by regular humans who make several mistakes.

Embryonic Stem Cell Research are pluripotent stem cells derived from the inner cell mass of a blastocyst. I believe that the use of Embryonic Stem Research is beneficial to society because these cells have unlimited potential. They can allow permanent repair to failing organs by injecting healthy cells into the damaged organ. They also can used for finding and preventing cures for cancers, Parkinson’s disease, birth defects, spinal cord injuries, and strokes. However, Stem Cell Research is a controversial topic, especially when referring to Embryonic Stem Cell Research.

This research has a lot of risks, but the potential outcomes are spectacular. The production of embryonic stem cells could help so many people. People could theoretically be created new tissue for them to use if lost. The immune system, in theory, should not reject the new tissue, due to it being an exact copy. This has been a major concern when it comes to any kinds of transplants. This could resolve that issue and save many lives in the process.

Embryonic stem cell research has been a heated debate for upwards of 30 years due to the controversial nature of extracting embryos for research purposes. Recently the ban for federal funding to research embryos has been lifted; therefore, sparking even more debate on whether or not embryonic stem cells research is ethical. Embryonic stem cell research is the extracting of embryos in order to conduct research in cell repair and growth. There are two moral principles to choose between: is it used to prevent or help suffering and pain, or should we respect the value of human life? Embryonic stem cell research is considered murder by many. Also, with thousands of embryos preserved in in vitro fertilization (IVF) clinics, “it appears that there

The debate over human embryonic stem cells, though quieter as of late, is contentious and strained. In media commentary of the debate, and consequently in the public psyche as well, moral and religious arguments are pitted against scientific research and development. Despite frequent scientific advancements into this relatively young area of research, many still oppose the budding technology. In Democratic nations, this has manifested in a popular effort to use regulation to change the research environment at local, national and international levels. Debate at the state and national level in the United States has focused on the competition between the desires of some groups to codify the majority’s religious values into law and trust that the progression of science will benefit us in the long run (Parthasarathy, 2014). Cultural, historical and ethical considerations are large determinants of regulations in other countries as well. As the science of stem cells progresses, complex regulations will as well. The policy and regulatory environment surrounding stem cells has the capacity to greatly impact the course of future research.

. However, embryonic stem cell research is also generally considered to have the greatest potential for delivering medical and scientific breakthroughs, since they are even more flexible (so to speak) and undifferentiated than adult stem cells (see Bongo and Richards).

Whenever these fertilized eggs are unwanted and unused by potential mothers, they are often donated to stem cell research labs without the full consent and understanding of the person whose genes are in the embryo. The embryo is immediately placed in a petri dish that replicates the environment of a mother’s uterus and allowed to begin growing into the person it would be. At this stage, the embryo can still be placed into a woman and has the potential to form a human life. The life is allowed to grow and form not only more stem cells, but specified cells that would have later formed every part of the natural body, including the building blocks for lungs, a tiny beating heart, and even eyelashes. However, these lives are never given the chance to live. They are rather allowed to begin developing, and then are dissected live, injected with toxic substance in order to gain a reaction, or mixed with the live cells of a deadly disease

Many of the criticisms directed towards the advent of stem cell research have centered on the source of the most scientifically useful types of stem cells—pre-implantation human embryos. Unfortunately, harvesting embryonic stem cells typically results in the destruction of the embryo from which they are harvested, which gives rise to a moral dilemma: is it ethically acceptable to destroy an embryo’s potential to life? Those who are against human embryonic stem cell research will answer you with an emphatic “no”; they usually argue much like pro-lifers—“…human embryos have an equal standing to all living persons… and destroying them is akin to murder” (Hyuu 71). However, to halt stem cell research solely because an embryo has the potential