In preparation for this thesis on the topic of stem research and application; I gathered data through various methods to reach a broad consensus on the public impression of stem cell research. In this chapter I will discuss the findings of those ventures and the impressions it made on my research. I conducted a survey asking general information on the public’s knowledge of stem cell research and held a classroom forum asking for open opinions on research.
My first research question is: what is the controversy behind stem cell research? To investigate this I conducted a classroom forum in Composition II, eighth period. I knew from previous research that the controversy arises from the use of embryonic stem cell harvesting, I wanted to see
…show more content…
To answer this question I created a survey. This survey, akin to the classroom forum was designed to gather a broad consensus from the public. In order for the survey to perform well in its task of gathering clear and concise data, I had the survey questions and methodology reviewed and approved by our resident statistics educator Tim Schwickerath. My survey involved questions that narrow the population of respondents into different groups. Examples of some questions that did this task would be: what is your gender? As well as questions asking the respondent if they supported embryonic stem cell research, if they supported federal funding of stem cell research or if they new anyone that could benefit from transplantation medicine. Through this process I was able to see the differences in ideology between different groups of …show more content…
I was able to survey a population of 15. Out of the respondent population, a staggering 94% of them supported federal funding of stem cell research. 93% supported embryonic stem cell research. A total of 73% of the respondent population said they were in the age range of 18-25, 24% percent were in the 26-36 age group. Considering where the bulk of this data was gathered that fact does not surprise me. Overall the survey lead me to a more solid affirmation on the topic of stem cells, and who opposes research. It seems the younger age groups are more ready to embrace future advancements. Here we have concrete evidence to support that it may not be a preconceived
Stem cell research has been quite a controversial topic since its origin in the 1960s by Gopal Das and Joseph Altman. Of course, anything that uses a human embryo would be. Stem cell research could open a vast number of new doors for modern science, it could let us test new drugs, one of which could be the unfound cure for AIDS or Alzheimer’s disease. However, this branch of science comes at a high price, the price of a human life that is only five to six days
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.
Too general/specific? Since "stem cell research" is a very broad topic, has this source helped you to narrow your topic? Senior, K. "Extending the Ethical Boundaries of Stem Cell Research." Trends in Molecular Medicine 7 (2001): 5-6. Print.
unfortunately the embryonic stem cell is a topic of serious heated debate. It has the most
This paper discusses the recent history of stem cell research in the United States, tracking the controversies, politics, and promise of new technology that comes with a moral price. Starting in August of 2001, with President Bush's request that Stem Cell Research not be paid for with federal funding, the battle of science against religion began. (Rosenburg, 2001) Despite extreme pressure from the science community, and the threat of falling behind other nations in this critical research, President Bush never rescinded his ban on federal funding of stem cell research. President Obama, since March 2009, has lifted this ban on federal funding of stem cell research, and for the past three years American scientists have been playing catch up with the rest of the world. The future of stem cell research is promising, but the upcoming presidential field, especially Candidate Rick Santorum, is a threat to the pursuance of this most precious technology. It looks as though the more moderate Mitt Romney will win the Republican nomination, however, and therefore federal funding for stem cells may continue even if Romney wins the general election in November. Stem Cell Research is only seen as a controversial methodology by a small subset of American citizens, yet this subset is extremely vocal. The future of stem cell research looks to be determined by how
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.
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,
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
The use of embryonic stem cells for research has been a controversial issue for many years. There have been benefits and risk toward the use of stem cells. The purpose of this paper is state the argument of both sides, how laws are brought into act, the position the state of Florida legislation has against using embryonic stems cells, how nurses can benefit being a health care policy advocate, and the position I chose in regards to fetal stem cell research.
People will go against this. People will say that the stem cell research and any particular use of stem cells are wrong. Most people believe that 'embryonic' stem cells which are the main type of stem cells should be not be allowed to be used for research or any particular reason whether it is curing a disease or saving someone's life! Do you think this should be acceptable? Do you think people who believe that an embryo has the full 'potential' to become a human individual has still rights of whether or not it should be destroyed? No not really because it isn't a human yet. Embryonic stem cells can cure many diseases may be different illnesses to stem cells. Maybe embryonic stem cells have a specialty that they can be used to cure more efficiently and more diseases to stem cells but some believe that embryonic stem cell research is mostly wrong as stem cells extracted from an embryo is then destroyed which could be classed as murder. But why are Stem cells so controversial? The reason for this is that embryonic stem cells are more used more commonly than adult stem cells because embryonic stem cells have not yet specialised into a particular body part, which means they are diverse and can be used in any part of the body whereas adult stem cells have already specialised meaning they are more restricted in what they can be used for and scientists believe that embryonic stem cells would be more beneficial to the medical world. US citizens were surveyed
The transfer of information, often shared through scientific reports and research, puts this topic in a highly international spotlight. Many supporters believe that stem cells will be able to help solve once untreatable diseases or injuries such as spinal cord injuries, skin burns, Parkinson’s disease, and some blood disorders. However, the main argument is if stem cells should be used in finding therapeutic treatments. The use of embryonic stem cells is viewed by many as a moral inconsistency; it is opposed by religious organizations and individuals believing that this research should be abandoned and existing, alternative methods be adapted.
Embryonic stem cell research could one day hold the key to many new scientific discoveries if it is continuously funded in the years to come. I chose to base my research around the question, Should embryonic stem cell research be government funded? When I finish highschool I hope to pursue a career in the medical field. Although I wish to become a doctor and may not be directly researching stem cells, they may one day be a treatment that I will have to administer to patients. To answer this question I first had to understand why embryonic stem cells are a topic for such heated debates. This is another thing that interested me greatly. I had known about how stem cells were produced, but I had not known about the ethics and great amount of
Embryonic stem cell research and use is a scientific advancement that could change medical history. There are two types of stem cell research, adult stem cells, and embryonic stem cells. Embryonic stem cells receive a very negative connotation in society, and there are many misconceptions about the process and the ethics of embryonic stem cell research. A large majority of society immediately assume that it is the use of aborted embryos because of the word embryonic, and adult stem cells are not as effective as embryonic. However, this is not the case. Embryonic stem cell research is in progress to help cure and reduce the effects of very fatal and harmful diseases that take many of societies precious lives. If research continues to
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
Scientists and researchers believe that Human Embryonic Stem Cells hold potential cures for numerous diseases in today's society, including multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, diabetes, Lou Gehrig's disease, Hodgkin's disease, hundreds of immune system and genetic disorders, spinal cord injuries, heart disease and just about every type of cancer. In today's world there's over a million Americans who suffer from deadly diseases, not only adults but innocent children that deserve to live a healthy life. These deadly diseases can be cured or treated in a more effective way than they are treated now with the help of the human embryonic stem cells. According to the Poll on "American views on stem cell research in the wake of the death of Ronald Reagan" which was prepared for results of America, shows that a sum of 73% highly supports and somewhat support this controversial process (Results of America, 2004). Even though this topic has brought continuous political attacks and very limited funding, Human Embryonic Stem cell research has made considerable contribution to the battle against disabilities and incurable diseases. A great example of success by using human embryonic stem cells was made by Dr. Hans Keirstead in the Roman Laboratory at UC Irvine; he restored myelin insulation around damaged nerves, returning motion to partially paralyzed rats. (Journal of Neuroscience, 2005) .