Politics and Stem Cell Research Essay examples

Embryonic stem cell research is a highly debated and sensitive topic.  There is a lot of good that can come from researching this technology of stem cell research because many people all across the globe would benefit from it.  The United States will soon fall short while other countries are already using this advancement if we cannot come to a logical conclusion on this vital issue.

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

This proposal is immoral because it violates a central tenet of all civilized codes on human experimentation beginning with the Nuremberg Code: It approves doing deadly harm to a member of the human species solely for the sake of potential benefit to others. The embryos to be destroyed by researchers in this campaign are at the same stage of development as embryos in the womb who have been protected as human subjects in federally funded research since 1975.(4) President Clinton's National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC) and its 1994 predecessor, the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel, conceded that the early human embryo is a form of developing human life that deserves our respect(5). Treating human life as mere research material is no way to show respect.

Embryonic stem cell research is a controversial topic nationwide, because of its clash of ethical and moral values. Many people, including those suffering from diseases that this research is seeking to cure, do not believe in killing a living embryo in order to advance research and science.

If the government does not adequately fund research on stem cells, it makes sense that large amounts of discoveries would be made. It is in the government's best interest to represent the country as a whole, which would not be possible by taking one specific side of the ethical debate. Certainly, there are major advantages, as well as major issues, with stem cell research, but the most critical area of dispute comes with the idea of reproductive cloning through stem

The introduction and expansion of embryonic stem cell research initiated a highly debated ethical topic. Can our society agree to disagree? What are embryonic stem cells? What are stem cells? Is all stem cell research considered abortion? Debates surrounding embryonic stem cell research is further complicated by social standards and needs, religious beliefs, and personal morals.

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,

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

Do No Harm: The Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics takes a very firm stand against the use of federal funding to aid in embryonic stem cell research. This coalition was founded by 8 extensively educated medical professionals, with the majority of them having specialized backgrounds in ethics or bioethics. The basis of their stance on the argument lies with the legally recognized practice of informed consent that requires a physician to do no harm to a patient. Their argument is that embryonic stem cell research that requires the destruction of a human embryo for the greater good of medicine legally, morally, and ethically defies the informed consent practice.

Specifically, the ethical controversies that come with using embryonic stem cells (Lo & Parham , 2009) and possible ways to get around them, will also be reviewed. Induced pluripotent stem cells in particular have the potential to replace the use of embryonic stem cells as they work in very similar ways. While there is some debate on how induced pluripotent stem cells still bring up some ethical issues (Alberta, 2009), they aren’t as heavy in comparison to that of embryonic stem cell usage. Also covered is the need for funding for stem cell research

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.

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.

This gave scientists the answer they needed to know that they were going to be able to extract stem cells from human embryos. In 1998, scientists isolated the first human embryonic stem cells. These cells were undifferentiated cells and could be used almost anywhere in the body. The reason that embryonic stem cell research was such a controversial topic was because the means by which researchers got their cells was not considered ethical to some. One team derived the cells from an aborted fetus, the other researchers created an embryo in an in vitro fertilization lab. As of 2000, the National Institutes of Health issued federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. When President Bush came into office, he put a hold on federal funding for stem cell research. By 2001, Bush had announced that he was limiting the funding of stem cell research to only the existing embryos being used in research. These embryos had already been worked on, and they had been contaminated, and were now useless in find cures for terminal diseases. In 2004, Korea announced that they had created the world’s first viable clone of a human embryo. The embryo clones could be used as a new source of embryonic stem cells. By 2005, The House passed a bill that would lessen President Bush’s restrictions of federal funding for stem cell research. For the first time in office, Bush vetoed the bill. This took place in 2006. In that same year, researchers found stem cells in amniotic fluid, which is found

Few recent scientific issues have stimulated so much media attention, public debate and government involvement as that of stem cell research. Stem cells offer people hope by promising to greatly extend the number and range of patients who could benefit from transplants, and to provide novel therapies to treat debilitating diseases such as diabetes, Parkinson?s, Huntington?s, heart disease and stroke, as well as accidental damage such as spinal cord injury. So why would anyone object to research in this area? The problem is simply that a particular type of stem cell, which potentially could provide many cell types for a wide range of therapeutic uses, is obtained from the very early embryo. To make matters even more