The Misleading Debate On Stem Cell Research

Imagine a world free from disease. The idea of a utopian society has been far from reality until the research from embryonic stem cell therapy surfaced. Since former president George W. Bush banned federal funding on embryonic stem cell research in 2001 it has caused a halt in advancements and caused controversy in the public. According to an article by Beau Watts, an accredited physician; embryonic stem cells are pluripotent cells (Beau Watts). This means they have not decided what function they perform yet. Since the cells do not know the function, it can be determined by scientists. As described in the “Guidelines for the conduct of human embryonic research” by the international stem cell society; medical professionals can take an embryonic stem cell and “reprogram” it to eliminate the disease. Today 2,200 people died from heart disease (American heart association). Heart disease is only one of many diseases that can be cured by embryonic stem cell research. Religious and/or conservative groups now condemn the research, for multiple reasons. Embryonic stem cells are donated by patients of in-vitro fertilization. After a “round” of IVF, they can choose to donate, freeze, or discard their leftover embryos. Embryos contain two layers, it is the innermost layer that contains the cells used in embryonic stem cell research (Society for stem cell research). It is very important to know that, the embryos that could be used in the research are donated upon request of the patient.

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

Controversy surrounding research and therapeutic use of stem cells has been a contentious and socially polarizing matter for a few decades. Arguments lie largely between the scientific community and the general public, although intragroup disagreements also persist today. These disparate views for and against stem cells arise out of the bioethical implications of an inchoate innovation, the general public’s tenuous understanding of the underlying technology itself, and sociopolitical ideologies. Due to the somewhat aged debate, recent revelations and advancements have changed the principle arguments and should be addressed accordingly.

The subject in this article is about the federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research. The argument is about Research on human embryonic stem cells and the development of therapies for chronic and debilitating diseases. The question is should the federal government of the United States provide funding for the stem cell research? The thesis of the argument is “others worry that even if research on embryos is not wrong in itself, it will open the way to a slippery slope of dehumanizing practices, such as embryo farms, cloned babies, the use of fetuses for spare parts, and the commoditization of human life.”

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.

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

For decades, researchers’ use of stem cells has caused a controversy and the consideration of the ethics of research involving the development, usage, and destruction of human embryos. Most commonly, this controversy focuses on embryonic stem cells. Not all stem cell research involves the creation, usage and destruction of human embryos. For example, adult stem cells, amniotic stem cells and induced pluripotent stem cells do not involve creating, using or destroying human embryos and thus are minimally, if at all, controversial. Many less controversial sources of acquiring stem cells include using cells from the umbilical cord, breast milk, and bone marrow. (Brunt, 2012) In 1998, scientists discovered how to extract stem cells from human embryos. This discovery led to moral ethics questions concerning research involving embryo cells, such as what restrictions should be made on studies using these types of cells? At what point does one consider life to begin? Is it just to destroy an embryo cell if it has the potential to cure countless numbers of patients? Political leaders are debating how to regulate and fund research studies that involve the techniques used to remove the embryo cells. No clear consensus has emerged. Other recent discoveries may extinguish the need for embryonic stem cells. With this in mind, we will discover both sides of the issue from a pros and cons point of view. Stem cell research has expanded at an exponential rate, but its therapeutic

Stem cells were first isolated and cultured in November of 1998 and have been surrounded with much debate and controversy since day one. “Although the ethical debates have been mostly static and have closely mimicked the ethical debates over abortion, the political determinations concerning federal funding of stem cell research have gone through numerous evolutions in the years since the first hESCs were isolated and cultured” (Saltzberg 505). Research is currently being conducted on stem cells, but only with private funds. The federal government has a ban on funding embryonic stem cell research because of the controversial issue of using embryos and fetuses. However, because of the possibility of a renewable

Embryonic stem cell research is the study of stem cells derived from the undifferentiated inner mass cells of a human embryo. For many years now, the ethics of embryonic stem cell research has been argued. A recent advance in this line of research is the ability to clone the embryonic stem cells, which allows for researchers to create a completely compatible embryonic stem cell to the individual’s tissue type. Though this new science may be very beneficial, not everyone can agree on the ethics of it. While the National Bioethics Advisory Commission approves of stem cell research via in vitro fertilization, they are strongly opposed of the cloning of embryos, which is expressed in Volume I Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission, “Issues in Human Stem Cell Research". On the other hand, Dr. Katrien Devolder, the writer of the article, “Creating and sacrificing embryos for stem cells” is devout to the advocacy of embryonic stem cell research which includes the use and derivation of stem cells from spare in vitro fertilization embryos as well as the creation of embryos for these purposes. Embryonic stem cell research has accomplished so much for for medicine, it would be a shame to not continue it because of opposing views that could easily come to a mutual consensus.

“At its core, this issue forces us to confront fundamental questions about the beginnings of life and the ends of science. It [stem cell research] lies at a difficult moral intersection, juxtaposing the need to protect life in all its phases with the prospect of saving and improving life in all its stages.” George W. Bush in his address at the Bush Ranch in Texas precisely captures the essence of the issues surrounding stem cells. “Stem cells are undifferentiated cells that have the capability of self replication as well as being able to give rise to diverse types of differentiated or specialized cell lines.” (Stien). Researching these cells can lead cures some of the most devastating ailments. Despite the research’s vast

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

Stem Cell Research has been a controversial topic to the public ever since its introduction in 1998 after a scientist James Thomson derived stem cells from human embryos. Stem cells are cells that have the extraordinary ability to “give rise to all cells and tissues in the body” (Holland, Lebacqz, & Zoloth, 2001). Stem cells thrilled scientists. They offered the potential in curing many diseases. They offered the ability to restore organs; one could save failing organs by injecting healthy cells into the damaged parts, this process is called regenerative medicine. Stem cells offered endless possibilities. However, the public didn’t know how to deal with it. They were conflicted on whether it was ethical to destroy human embryos or the miraculous

There are many thoughts that Stem Cell Research on embryos meant for treating infertility should not be funded by the United States government because it is unethical and immoral. People have created the thought that embryos are babies when they aren’t just yet. (JCI) “Some people [] believe that an embryo is a person with the same moral status as an adult or a live-born child.” People have assumed that embryos are babies, thus giving forth to the idea of taking cells for research from said embryos is immoral, when in reality an embryo is nothing but a ball of cells that are constantly manipulating each other and multiplying. The embryos can’t possibly be babies just yet because there is no brain, no beating heart, and no functioning organs; there is no self-sustaining life functions until the fetal heartbeat begins at 5 weeks of gestation. (JCI) “Although some may view the derivation and use of [Embryonic Stem] cells as ethically distinct activities, we do not believe that these differences are significant from the point of view of eligibility for federal funding.” Stem Cell Research should not be rejected for federal

For those who believe the human embryo deserves some measure of respect, but disagree that the respect due should equal that given to a fully formed human, it could be considered immoral not to use embryos that would otherwise be destroyed to develop potential cures for disease affecting millions of people. An additional concern related to public policy is whether federal funds should be used for research that some Americans find unethical. (Hanna)

The ethical questions surrounding stem cell research are split into two divergent points: the pursuit of medical research in order to develop old and create new therapeutics and cures versus the preservation and respect of human and embryonic life. As a populace, these are the two issues we must acknowledge to ensure we reflect the morals and values of our