Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research

potential to make the world a much better place, it is beyond many why people have not advocated more for legislation that increases funding for this type of research. These important steps forward in the history mankind have been limited by religious and anti-abortion groups and their beliefs, not by any legitimate legal concerns. The President of the United States has the final say in whether or not embryonic stem-cell research should be allowed to continue or if it should be funded more or less. For years this issue has been left alone, indicating the neutrality of many governments trying to please both sides. It is difficult to see any legislation being made concerning embryonic stem-cell research simply because the two sides, supporting and not, will most likely never see eye-to-eye.

Stem cell derivatives may be a beneficial source of transplantable cells that may be able to repair and regenerate certain tissues. If this could be accomplished, the medical benefits would be enormous, such as helping Parkinson disease, MS, diabetes, and muscular dystrophies. Although, this could be an extremely important advancement in the field of medicine, there exist many ethical and religious issues that look down upon destroying embryos for research. The stem cells that are focused on in this report are embryonic stem cells. However, adult stem cells may also be used to give rise to lineages of cells that are more specialized than themselves. They are more differentiated than embryonic stem cells. Research using adult stem cells is much less controversial since they can be obtained without destroying an embryo. There is also a strong political aspect that has been brought up in recent discussions regarding groups who try to push adult stem cell research over embryonic stem cell research since they consider it a more permissible option. In contrast, people in favor of embryonic stem cell research try to discredit the potential of adult stem cell studies.

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.

With exponential increases in the capabilities of modern technology, it only fits that we use this technology to further our existence as a species. Embryonic Stem Cell Research is one of the ways we have come up with to advance our species into the future. However, the perpetrators and supporters have been under fire and controversy since its inception in 1979. The protesters are fighting it mainly because it is destroying unborn fetuses in the process.Personally, I have a special and specific connection to embryonic stem cell research. As a Type 1 Diabetic, I know that the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation uses embryonic stem cell research in its efforts to find a cure for Type 1 Diabetes. The main use for the stem cells they have is

Embryonic stem cell research could provide many medical advanced. Studying the stem cells could help prevent diseases such as Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer's, and heart disease.

As technology advances, the use of embryonic stem cell research has also expanded. Stem cells have shown promise in personalized medicine as they are undifferentiated and easily conform with the surrounding cells. There are two areas of research that stem cells are showing massive potential, cell regeneration and organ transplantation. It is thought that stem cells have the capability to “model genetic disorders in a reliable fashion such that no other method allows. It seems likely that we could use stem cells to model cells with genetic disorders and figure out how to mute certain genes, thus eliminating or drastically reducing the effects of the disease,” (1). Although embryonic stem cells (ESC) are showing great potential towards medical advancements, there are many people who are opposed to the idea of using these cells due to the aggressive nature in which we extract ESC.

In addition to research, these types of stem cells are used to restore and repair damaged tissue in all kinds of diseases. Embryonic stem cells are so useful because they have pluripotency, which means that they can differentiate into any human cell type. The cell types that they are commonly induced in are neural, heart, liver and insulin pumping beta cells that are similar to the pancreas. Since these embryonic stem cells can be differentiated into so many types of cells, they are able to treat diseases like: Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes and many more.

The process when stem cells give rise to blood cells, or any other specialized cells, is called differentiation (“Stem Cell Basics”). Stem Cells’ ability of differentiation can be targeted and directed to generate tissue and therefore to cure degenerative diseases (Panno 24-28). However, such medical promise faces the doubts and gives rise to disputes. In fact, federal funds for stem cell research were banned under President Bush’s administration, but the ban was then lifted by President Obama’s administration (Obama). Despite the different arguments, more medical trials should be conducted with embryonic stem cells in order to determine whether the medical promise is applicable or far-fetched.

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.

The controversy concerning the ethical dilemma related to stem cell research rages on. One particular basis of this controversy emanates from the fact that embryonic stem cells research derives its stem cells from destroyed embryos. Stem cells are cells that are yet to be specialized into specific tissue that serves specific function in the organism. Some radical scientists have labeled these cells the building blocks of future medical and biotechnical research because they can be stimulated into any desires tissue (Isobe, Tooi, Nakatsuji, & Aiba, 2015). One particularly interesting application in the medical field is research into replacing defective tissue responsible for devastating diseases and conditions such as Parkinson ’s syndrome and ALS.

The phrase “stem cell” calls to mind images of controversy: Pro-life picketers outside abortion and in-vitro fertilization clinics, patients with chronic disabilities waiting on a cure, scientists in a lab experimenting with a petri dish. These cells offer unimaginable opportunities for regenerative medicine because they can retain the ability to differentiate. Stem cells are classified as either adult or embryonic. Embryonic stem cells can

The stem cells from embryos are usually undifferentiated cells meaning they are effective in the treatment of certain diseases and in cell-based therapies (Siegel and Andrew, 2016). They have the ability to move to sites where there’s damage, where they proliferate and differentiate into new cells, when introduced into a patient (NIH, 2015). An example may be that they can possibly be used to produce healthy heart cells in the laboratory and then transplant them into patients suffering with chronic heart disease (NIH, 2015). This can increase the extrinsic value for using embryos for research. Another example is they can be used in the treatment of type 1 diabetes. This is supported by new studies that suggest that it may be possible to control the differentiation of human embryonic stem cells in cell culture to form insulin-producing cells for transplantation therapy to cure people suffering from diabetes (NIH, 2015). Current tests involve drug molecules being tested in mice and rats first, but the results are not always accurate and do not correlate with what happens in the human body. As a result, many scientists now believe that testing drugs on stem cells from human embryos could have more accurate results than current tests

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