Stem Cell Research: The Debate Over Federal Funding Essay

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

It has the ability to form any type of specific cell and thus has the greatest potential for treatments in the near future.  A more recent development in stem cell research is the creation of induced pluripotent cells, which are adult cells that become undifferentiated through a series of treatments.  Induced pluripotent stem cells have a number of benefits because the destruction of embryos is not necessary and there are no issues with immune response or rejection because the cells come from the patient.  However, it will be a long time before this type of cell become widely used on humans because the method used is not completely understood and has negative side effects.  In animal testing, “…the virus used to introduce the stem cell factors sometimes causes cancers” (“Stem cell basics”).  Therefore, embryonic stem cells should be an important part of stem cell research.  Even if induced pluripotent cells can replace embryonic cells in the future, the knowledge gained from current embryonic cell research would still be very applicable.   Unfortunately, research is very time and resource intensive, which is where the debate of federal funding comes into play.

By definition, discovery implies uncertainty, but progress cannot exist without either. They are codependent upon each other. Whether the use of embryonic stem cells is truly the destruction of human life and whether the potential of human life is equal to the possible realization of that potential is also codependent. Neither of these questions can be answered without simultaneously answering the other. Arguments from both sides of this issue are extremely valid, which is why it has become such a difficult question for anyone with consideration of the opinions of others to answer. That being said, a rational stance on this issue must incorporate views from both sides, as well as logic to keep from becoming indifferent. A moderate policy should be adopted by the United States, one that allows the funding of research on spare embryos from IVF as opposed to their disposal, and one that allows for the use of Nuclear Transfer for the purpose of therapeutic cloning as long as the eggs are obtained from willing donors, though a policy that does not permit the production of human embryos strictly for research besides in the context of therapeutic cloning. This policy can be justified through the logic of Kantian Ethics, John Harris’s, “Stem Cells, Sex, and Procreation,” John P. Lizza’s, “Potentiality and Human Embryos,” and a public opinion expressed by Ian Wilmut.

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

The studying of stem cells is a very controversial issue that has been around since 1998 when the research of the use of embryonic stem cell treatment began. The main issues surrounding the discussion of treating people with life-altering disabilities through the use of these pluripotent cells is the ethicality of the matter and whether or not it is a savage act against a fetus. Many who oppose the use of these stem cells derived from excess embryos use the formerly stated opinion to support their argument, while those who are pro research argue that the destroying of one life could save another. The core complications that arise in studying stem cells lies in many Christian-like ethics and morals, otherwise called Christian bioethics. These are rooted in the modern day controversies arising due to advancements made in biology and medicine, mixed with religious views that argue against it. The conflicting interests of the polar opposites which are scientists and those with religious views have caused many complications along the way to discovering new treatments and cures for diseased cells. This bumpy road which has refrained scientists from making tremendous breakthroughs must smooth itself out, and the only way possible is through coming to an agreement that certain stem cell research should be practiced, such as the IPSC and adult stem cells, and others like the

Human embryonic stem cell research has been a hot debate for many years and with good reason. Many people believe that by performing this type of research we are violating the right to human life. In his article, Jim Eckman makes a compelling argument, but fails to really make any convincing arguments about why the negatives outweigh the medical benefits that stem cell research possesses and so for that I disagree with him.

Unfortunately, embryonic stem cell research involves extracting stem cells from embryos, thus killing them in the process. According to Stanford.edu, “Opponents of HESC [Human Embryonic Stem Cell] research argue that the research is morally impermissible because it involves the unjust killing of innocent human beings.” Yes, these embryos are dying from the extraction of their stem cells, but the fact of whether or not this is killing innocent human beings solely depends on point of view. If you consider a five-day old embryo to be a human being, then perhaps you would consider this to be wrong, but you believe otherwise, then maybe you would agree with the sacrificing of these embryos for beneficial research. This is how embryonic stem cell research has been very controversial in prior years and even

Millions of people die every year from diseases and accidents; the nightly news is filled with reports about the devastating effects of cancer, horrific accidents, and disasters that leave people disfigured or paralyzed. Embryonic stem cell research is a part of biomedical science and has the potential to ease the suffering of sick people by curing diseases and defects, creating organs and tissue for patients needing transplants or skin grafts, regenerating axons in spinal cord injuries, and creating new treatments, drugs, and immunizations. However, America’s government does not support this research to an extent that would make a difference in medicine; only a few stem cell lines are authorized, and federal funding is minimal. The

Other scientists supporting embryonic stem cell research say that the 64 lines the President has allowed funding for will soon need to be replaced because of age. Before any more federal funding is allowed for embryonic stem cell (ESC) research, it is critical that the government examines the concerns that the anti-abortionists have then determine if it is morally acceptable to further fund ESC research.

Imagine living in a world without cancer, Parkinson 's, or even diabetes. While everyone may wish this is true, people are against a way that researchers can make this possible, which would be by the use of stem cells. There is major controversy on whether or not stem cell research should be allowed, especially when it comes to embryonic stem cell research. Although many consider it to be killing a potential life form, embryonic stem cell research may eventually be acceptable to use because there is consent and a lengthy process to make sure the donor understands what their embryonic stem cells will be used for. That may be viewed as a much better

Abortion, gay marriage, and illegal immigration are all hot button topics currently being faced by Americans. As ardently as each side defends their stance on a controversial issue, an opposing side fights with equal diligence for the beliefs they feel should be valued by our nation. Perhaps nowhere is this battle more heated than in the fight over stem cell research. While supporters of this new field of science tout it’s potential to cure everything from blindness to paralysis, those against stem cell science liken the procedures used by scientists to murder. It is my intention to bring to light the positive benefits of stem cell research as well as counter the claims used by many Pro-life groups who believe the scientists driving this

Now, while there is a reasonable opinion to oppose stem cells, the pros of stem cell research outweighs the cons. The possibilities to stem cell research is endless. If stem cell research’s support keep growing, thousands of people's lives could be saved, possibly including your loved ones. As Americans, and human beings, we must not sacrifice, living, human lives to save a bundle of

While some people might say that stem cell research is immoral and unethical, others believe that it is a magical solution for almost any problem, thus leading to a very controversial issue. Scientists have been searching for years for ways to eradicate incurable diseases and perform other medical procedures that yesterday's technology would not fix. With the rapidly arising, positive research on stem cell technology, the potential that exists to restore any deficiency is in the same way, likely to destroy humanity. America is suffering from its inability to choose who holds precedence over this issue. Too many of us find it impossible to reach a basis for which our differing opinions can be shared and formed into a universal and

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,

Naturally, he shares this belief with many people especially those viewing this from a religious standpoint. Religiously, people regard the use of embryonic stem cells as unnecessarily throwing away the lives of humans in the name of medical advancement, which, in the end, does not justify it. Some have even gone further to support this belief by citing part of the Hippocratic Oath which states “first, do no harm” (Kiessling 184-94).