Stem Cell Research In Frankenstein

The book Frankenstein by Mary Shelley is arguably one of the most well known books ever written. What many people don't realize is with modern technology humans might not be far from creating artificial life. Through research involving STEM cells and “designer babies” we are near the point of creating parts of the human body. The problem is, seemingly immutable laws have restricted scientists abilities to study STEM cells. The unremitting battle between the two sides is what holds this country back from reaching its full health potential.

This report describes how ethics involving embryos has been ongoing for 25 years but has significantly increased with the stem cell controversy. Another issue brought up by this report is whether or not federal funds should be spent on an issue that is so ethically

In our government today Congress, the Supreme Court, and the President are all faced with making tough decisions for our country. These decisions are not only decided based off the constitution but the ideological shift as generations go on. Possibly one of the most controversial landmark decisions the government is currently being challenged with is the affair of abortion. In 1973 the Supreme Court of the United States was presented the case of Roe v Wade. The ruling decided a person has the right to privacy protected by the due process clause of the 14th amendment. This gave women the right to decide to have an abortion, but only under regulations from the state. As a result of this case, scientific research was conducted on stem cells starting in 1978 when a scientist discovered stem cells in human cord blood. From 1981 to 1991 scientist tested stem cells in mice, hamsters, and later in primates. 1998 marked an important discovery of pluripotent stem cells in an embryo, which is where the problem lies between the morals and ethics of citizens and the politicians’ jobs to decide for the people what is right for stem cell research.

Eckman claims that instead of helping, stem cell research kills and destroys human life. However, at the stage that these embryos are at, they are not considered to be a human life. They are unable to survive on their own until they are implanted into the uterus so they are only considered to be a part of another human being. If we choose to use them for research opportunities we are not in any way harming them because they have no desires, thoughts, or emotions. These properties are all things that we associate with being a human so if these embryos do not have any of those, they are not considered to be humans yet. In fact, many fertilized eggs are lost because of natural causes with no further implications, so using embryos for research purposes should be looked at

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.

Those who are against embryonic stem cell research commonly bring up the point of the embryo being unconscious, so it should not be killed because of its inability of awareness. Those who do not support the research compare the state of being unconscious to being asleep. While a person sleeps, it would be unacceptable to do any harm to them, so people expect the same treatment to go to the unformed human as well. Though a fully developed human and a newly formed blastocyte are far from similar, many try to argue that by those enforcing the rights of humans while they are unconscious, then we should “exercise these capacities when they eventually become fully developed humans”(Key). The argument against this problem is that embryos will never gain consciousness, but humans will eventually regain it once they wake up. The difference is that a embryo never had the chance to become conscious.

In the novel, Frankenstein, Mary Shelley displays the universal theme that one should not interfere with nature, as it is immoral and unethical. For example, issues like human cloning and gendercide, have the ability to cause harmful after-effects; however, there are biology-related topics such as stem cell research that cause more good than harm. Stem cell research unlocks the possibility of treating or curing different diseases and reproducing infinitely to form new tissue, which can repair damaged organs. Stem cell research is a moral and ethical study that has the potential to help many people, and sometimes animals.

Stem cells have been around as early as 1868, but stem cells are often related to “Frankenstein” by Mary Shelley and the book was published in 1818, 50-years before stem cells were thought of. Did Mary Shelley have an idea of stem cells? Was it around earlier, but no one mentioned it until 1868? In Frankenstein, Victor, a scientist, used body parts that he severed from grave digging in order to create the creature. When Victor was done shaping the creature he was “playing god” because he brought something to life without reproduction. Stem cells are also referred to “playing god”, or “cheating at life.” Today, stem cells have a much bigger picture, they are used to help save lives of others and have been proven that they could cure some diseases,

Throughout the last couple of decades the rise of technology has influenced the lives of Americans in many ways. From the time scientists started in depth experiments with stem cells in the 1980s, to the present day, the use of stem cells in research has been a prominent topic not only in legislation, but also in everyday conversations (Bush). This is because of the controversy these conversations introduce, as well as the hope in the potential outcomes and cures they may bring (Clemmitt). Some people believe that stem cell research should not be performed due to the fact that using embryonic stem cells is considered a form of

A great deal of Americans believe that it is morally reprehensible to destroy an embryo for research purposes, as well as create embryos specifically for research, which can almost seem like “playing God.” Many people also base their distaste for hESC experimentation on their religious convictions, such as the Christian belief that life begins at conception. Both beliefs make sense and should be acknowledged when considering if the government should have a hand in funding stem cell research. However, while religious values and morals are valid beliefs that are essential for humanity to function, sometimes they get in the way of real progress and should not be the only factor considered. Furthermore, it can be argued that using “spare” embryos from in-vitro fertilization is even more humane. Supporters of hESC experimentation argue that it would be for the best if the embryos had the chance do everything in their power to help “alleviate human suffering” (Bothwell 165). Additionally, some argue that that federally funding hESC research is unecessary due to one simple fact: the stem cell industry is already largely run on private donations and state funding. While private and state donations have certainly helped usher in groundbreaking discoveries, the resources of the federal government vastly dwarfs the resources of the states; one can only imagine the possibility of future

“A spokesperson for the Family Research Council, William Saunders, reportedly suggested that pro-choice abortion rights groups should not defend human stem cell/embryo research because it has not directly linked to reproductive choice. He said: "It's incredible that they're so ideological that they can't separate this. He continued: "You can have the argument that abortion is a conflict of rights between the unborn child ... versus the woman's right ... to control her own body. [However] this is a different issue. This is where a human being, without their consent, can be used for research to benefit someone else. It's a living human being. It's not a situation where you have even the question of the remains of an aborted human being. This is a live human being that has to be killed." —quoted in Robinson, “What is a Human Embryo?” I agree with this man completely this is not about abortion this is about using a human without his consent to be used for research. If that person is an adult where they can say “Yes they can use me for this science experiment” or “No I do not want to be used for this experiment because X” There is a complete difference in saying yes or taking the right that every person is entitled to, the right to freedom of speech. If in taking that away then why not take away all other rights as

While stem cell research holds the potential to contribute to the development of many cures and treatments. Human embryonic stem cell research is ethically controversial because it involves the destruction of an embryo after stem cells are extracted. The destruction of the embryo brings up the complicated dilemma of whether the destruction of the embryo is unethical, as it involves the issue of whether the embryo has the right to its life. The basic argument is that an embryo is a potential fetus and is an innocent human being (Lernser, 2013). To some opponents of stem cell research, the destruction of an embryo means that a potential fetus and ultimately a potential human being were killed; therefore, this act and the research effort behind

The use of embryonic stem cells has caused many debates because of the destruction of an embryo. It has also become a part of controversies in abortion, religious groups, politicians, and the public. People who are pro-life compare the destroying of an embryo to an abortion. They believe that the embryo is equal to life because it has full opportunity to become a human being. The people against embryonic stem cell use believe that it is immoral to destroy one life to save another. By using the stem cells then getting rid of the embryo, people against the research think that the embryos future life is being taken advantage of. Which can cause problems for future research studies that similarly “belittles” life, even though people find it wrong to use embryos for stem cell research, it is a good way to save

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.

Opponents to stem cell research challenge that “demand for embryos may encourage laboratories to grow them for the sole purpose of research, in effect producing embryos with the knowledge that they will be killed in the process” (Preface to “Is Stem Cell Research Ethical?”). Because of the medical benefits of adult and induced pluripotent stem cells, the use of embryonic stem cells have decreased. To continue searching for more possible cures of stem cells, excess embryos to the “needs of in virto fertilization, rather than be destroyed, [] should be used for basic biomedical research” (Embryonic Stem Cell Research Fulfills Christian’s Duty to Save Lives). Although embryonic cells are one stem cell that researchers are exploring, these types of cells are not the only types. Researchers are exploring more alternatives to embryonic cells including the induced pluripotent stem cell and stem cells from other types of blood that have shown promising results and may soon end the testing on embryonic cells. In fact, in the case of Joe Davis, Jr. and his brother, the younger brother survived infancy. The treatment allowed both brothers to live healthy lives. “More than 90% of the work involving stem cells is not controversial,” the morals and ethics of using the embryo tends to be the deal breaker (A Beginner’s Guide to Understanding Stem Cells [analysis]). The majority of stem cell research is like most other treatments: there is some risk to the patient but the results of the procedure are projected to be worth it. As stem cell research becomes more popular, opponents challenge that “there has been a proliferation of websites offering dubious treatments, luring people with incurable diseases who are emotionally vulnerable” (What Lies Behind the Hype and Hope of Stem Cell Research and Therapy [analysis]). No matter what the treatment is, there will always be scam websites