Stem Cell Research Funding Essay

Without federal funding, it becomes very hard for medical facilities to continue studying embryonic stem cells.  Almost all of the men and women who we elected to represent us in office are God-fearing people, but not all of them are against the research.   The politicians who do not support the research are generally conservative, where as the ones who are in support of the stem cell research are mostly liberal.  For example, President Bush cut off the federal funding for stem cell research, but President Obama resumed the funding shortly after taking office.  Although, in late August of 2009 a federal judge declared that embryonic stem cell research was once again off limits for federal funding.  The reason for this was because Obama's action violated the previous 1996 Dickey-Wicker amendment which disallows funding for any procedure in which embryos are "created, destroyed, or discarded or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death." In 1999, Harriet Rabb, counsel for the Department of Health and Human Services, determined that human embryonic stem cells that are derived from embryos are not the same as embryos and are therefore immune to the federal funding cuts.   A federal court said that this deciding question was whether or not an embryo was destroyed as a result of the

Are embryonic stem cells the cure to many of the human body’s ailments, including defective organs and crippling diseases, or is their use a blatant disregard of human rights and the value of life?  Thanks to the rapid advancements in this field, the potential benefits of stem cells are slowly becoming reality.  However, embryonic stem cell research is an extremely divisive topic in the United States thanks to the ethical issues surrounding terminating embryos to harvest the stem cells.  In response to this debate, Congress passed the Dickey-Wicker amendment in 1995 to prohibit federal funding of research that involved the destruction of embryos.  President Bush affirmed this decision, but more recently President Obama lifted many of

The President’s Council on Bioethics published “Monitoring Stem Cell Research” in 2004. This report was written in response to President Bush’s comments regarding research of human stem cells on August 9, 2001. President Bush announced that he was going to make federal funding available for research that involved existing lines of stem cells that came from embryos. He is the first president to provide any type of financial support for the research of human stem cells. A Council was created with people who are educated in the field of stem cells to help monitor the research and to recommend guidelines and consider the ethical consequences that this research could create. This report is an “update” given

Stem cells are basically the building blocks of life. Some type of these cells can be engineered into any type of cell in the human body. There are three types of stem cells currently. Adult or somatic stem “cells can generate replacements for bone and muscle cells that are lost through injury, disease or normal wear and tear.” Another type of stem cells are embryonic stem cells. Embryonic stem cells “are “starter cells” that can be coaxed into becoming any of the specialized cells of the body, meaning they are “pluripotent.” The final type of stem cells are induced-pluripotent stem cells. Induced pluripotent stem cells “are adult stem cells that have been genetically altered to behave like embryonic stem cells”(National Institute of Health). Due to the advancement in medical technology scientists and doctors alike are now able to use stem cells for a variety of reasons like research and also in patient care. The benefits of this research can lead to the cure of diseases like diabetes, some cancers, and even neurodegenerative diseases like Parkinson’s Disease and spinal cord injuries. The controversy behind stem cells lie from where these stem cells come from. The source of stem cells are plentiful. Some stem cells can come from human embryos that are a few days old. Stem cells can also be engineered in a laboratory setting using the cells from human embryos. Also there are certain stem cells that can be harvested from adults and

Upon review of the legislative interpretation put forth by Harriet Rabb, new President Bush announced on August 9, 2001 that federal funding would be restricted “only to the human stem cell lines existing as of [that date] (then estimated at about [21] lines) and officially withdrew President Clinton’s guidelines a few months later” (Kearl 1). In this decision President Bush had decided that federal funds could be used “for research on the existing stem cell lines, where the life and death decision has already been made” (“President Discusses Stem Cell Research”). This is where the Clinton administration’s guidelines differed. They did not specify between currently existing and not yet existing human embryonic stem cell lines. Both guidelines did agree, however, that the federal government should not fund human embryonic stem cell research that directly destroyed embryos. In response to President Bush’s decision over 200 members of Congress signed a letter in

The Department of Health and Human Services maintained a moratorium on federal funding for research on embryos and fetuses, as well as in vitro fertilization, until President Clinton issued an executive order lifting it in 1993 (Scott p.153). However, Congress banned federal funding for human embryo research by adding legislation known as the Dickey-Wicker Amendment to every appropriations bill for the National Institutes of Health since 1995, making it impossible for the President to overturn the ban without also cutting the cash flow to the NIH (Scott p.154). This restriction remains in place today. On August 9, 2001, President Bush “clarifies which human embryonic stem cells can be used under federal funding rules” by stating that any lines derived from excess IVF blastocysts before his announcement are eligible for grants (Hopkins 2005). Then in 2009, President Obama lifted the 'made-before ' restriction for stem cell lines but maintained the ban on creation and destruction of embryos for research purposes (Madison.com 2009).

Embryonic stem cell research has been a highly controversial topic for several years. The question of how far science is supposed to push human life has many sides, each warring against each other. In 2010, in the Sherley v. Sebelius case, allowing research involving human embryonic cells was brought into question once again, after Presidents Bush and Obama had dealt with the matter in previous years. At the end of the case in April of 2011, The District Court of Appeals decided to overturn the preliminary injunction, which actually had allowed federal funding the research experimenting with human embryos to continue. While this case was closed, the topic still is not. Stem cell research as a whole faces judgement from many who think it is

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

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.

Stem cells have a plethora of side effects that over powers the benefits. The ability to differentiate is known as plasticity, and it is thought to only be at its greatest in embryonic stem cells. In order for the embryonic cells to be of use they must be fertilized, after which, the stem cell is removed, destroying the embryo. Stem cells can be used in adults; however it is believed through the consensus of the medical community that the plasticity of embryonic stem cells is not even closely matched by those of adult stem cells. The general idea is that “adult stem cells have a limited capacity to differentiate (Solter 8).” Adult stem cells are already stuck in their ways, which makes it useless, in a way. They can only reproduce the same cell type that they originate from. Thus, despite the prospecting medical leaps that this technology can provide, the process of how to obtain the embryonic stem cells overwhelms the benefits by far.

Embryonic stem cell research is a highly controversial topic in today's society, this kind of stem cell commits to regenerate any type of tissue. Unfortunately, Embryonic Stem Cell Research has a dark side. To obtain these cells will kill the embryo automatically. In other words, the acquirement of the Human Embryonic Stem Cell includes performing an abortion. To obtain these cells, it would kill the embryo. This has created controversy since abortion is such a divisive topic. Politicians are uneasy to take sides. The Human Embryonic Stem Cell issue is today's Pandora's Box due to all the unwittingly chaos that it can bring to our lives. By having this new option available in the medical world,

Stem cell research has incredible potential. It is more important in healthcare than one may realize.

Numerous people will argue their points without complete knowledge of the topic at hand basing their argument off of second hand accounts of others be it the media or friends and family. Never stopping for a moment to do research on their own never asking themselves, what exactly are stem cells? “Stem cells are a unique group of unspecialized type of cell found in embryos, and some adult body tissues that has the potential to develop into specialized cells or divide into other stem cells. These cells are most commonly derived from blastocyst which is achieved through in vitro fertilization, which is fertilization outside of the womb. Blastocysts are the beginning of an embryo only a few days old, and are hollow balls of upwards of one hundred cells, and these cells will eventually divide into the two hundred and twenty types of cells in your body currently.” (What are Stem Cells?) Researchers cannot continue to wait much longer past this point with the legal strains being forced upon them by the government there, allotment of stem cell cultures has resulted in the degrading of the stem cells they do have for research therefore limiting the usefulness of the cells. Research in an effort to continue this critical research have found out there is a possibility to take adult skin cells and alter these to act similar to embryonic stem cells but this is not an end all

Thomas Edison said that “[t]he doctor of the future will give no medicine but will interest his patients in the care of the human frame, in diet and in the cause and prevention of disease.” He is saying that doctors will care more about the lives of his patients no what is best for them. He means that they will be investing time in preventing diseases all together instead of momentarily fixing the problem. In his time, he had no idea what kind of technology we would have today. He did not know that future medicine could be revolving around life’s purest, simplest thing: embryonic stem cells. Embryonic stem cells are undifferentiated cells that form straight from the blastocyst within the first 3-5 days of