We Should Look Into Gene Editing And Stem Cell Research

Many of us have all heard the saying that a “lizard can lose its tail,” and bizarrely enough it will grow back. This was always considered impossible for humans, an idea belonging in the realm of science fiction, but now the regeneration of tissue is an extremely realistic possibility. Despite some opinions, this process does not happen naturally, or take place as cinematically as one might imagine. Over the past decade, there have been major advances in regenerative medicine, commonly known as stem cell research. Stem cells are undifferentiated cells within the body that have the capability to specialize into any tissue. They are most commonly found in cord blood, bone marrow, organ donations, placenta, and embryos . Stem cells are seen by some as a new miracle treatment, encouraging many countries to invest in their research.

Although the intentions of genetically modifying DNA in human embryos is aimed to rid society of genetic defects, it is still essential that this scientific discovery remains ethical. In an article on NPR.org, Rob Stein describes an experiment that scientists have been conducting in which they modify human DNA in order to eliminate life threatening genetic diseases that could be passed on for generations (Stein). In Portland, at Oregon Health & Science University, Paula Amato, an associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology, explains “that their work is aimed at preventing terrible diseases, not creating genetically enhanced people...much more research is needed to confirm the technique is safe and effective before anyone tries to make a baby this way”(Stein). Because scientists like Amato realize their research is controversial, they are taking every precaution to assure what they are doing is morally correct, they are not intending to corrupt society. Although their intentions are good, it is their job to make sure their research is being used in an ethical way. If not, millions of people, who are already obsessed with the idea of perfection, will be able to do something about

The embryonic stem cells can be a very good use in surgeries. Can even help cure cancer. But why embryos? Why not use adult stem cells. By permitting this research we don't only increase the number of dangerous procedures women go through. But we also make people think that abortion is a good and can help others. Not everyone agrees with the destruction of their embryos to do research. Some others simply just don't want to get their embryos experimented on. By this research abortion would most likely have to become legal. These treatments go against our lifes rights. The people in need of these treatments would most

Medical science has improved exponentially since the 1980’s, when research on stem cells gained interest. Stem cells, found in embryos, blood, bone marrow, and adipose tissue, are undifferentiated, meaning they can change themselves and become more specialized cells. In 1998, a method to derive and grow stem cells in a laboratory from human embryos was discovered, and since then, it has been one of the most debated areas of medical study. Those who oppose research on stem cells argue that experimentation on human embryos and reproductive cloning in any form, such as in Huxley’s Brave New World, is unethical, and often reference the lack of results from said experiments. However, a more realistic view is that stem cell research is an important field of medical science, and while significant advancements have been surely made, more breakthroughs in this field can lead to considerable societal improvements and benefit thousands of patients globally.

The ethics of research involving fetuses or material derived from fetuses have been widely debated for over three decades, portrayed by its proponents as holding the key to scientific and medical breakthrough and by its opponents as devaluing the most basic form of human life. The latest chapter in this long saga involves the use of embryonic stem cells. Research in this field took a great leap forward in 1998, when the first successes in growing human stem cells in culture were reported independently by Drs. James Thomson and John Gearhart. According to the National Institutes of Health, embryonic stem cell research "promises...possible cures for many debilitating diseases and injuries, including Parkinson 's disease, diabetes, heart disease, multiple sclerosis, burns, and spinal cord injuries. The NIH believes the potential medical benefits of human pluripotent stem cell technology are compelling and worthy of pursuit in accordance with appropriate ethical standards (National Institutes of Health 2000). Research in this new and developing field has sparked controversy centered on the moral implications of destroying human embryos and poses several compelling ethical questions. Among them: Does life begin at fertilization, in the womb, or at birth? Might the destruction of a single human embryo be justified if it can alleviate the pain and suffering of many patients?

As modern medicine advances, new techniques such as regenerative medicine can be used to help aid in the treatment of diseases through the use of stem cells ("Stem cells: What they are and what they do" 1). The use of stem cells has been an ongoing debate between whether or not it is actually ethical to use embryonic stem cells, as well as if the embryo has any rights which should be protected. Since it is difficult to place a concrete definition on what exactly makes a person a person, this adds to the controversy surrounding stem cells. The central conflict that is faced when speaking about stem cells is whether or not using the research to help those suffering from diseases is worth using an embryo that possibly could have held life.

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

Fast forwards two hundred years and the science (or lack thereof) depicted is almost indistinguishable, a revolutionary new process called CRISPR (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats) is allowing science to edit the human genome almost at will. With the announcement of US scientists creating the first genetically modified embryo, an outburst of ethical debate has arisen. While they are certainly not the first (a Chinese division won the achievement in 2015), this achievement was created through the CRISPR process.

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

New technological advances and scientific methods continue to change the course of nature. One of the current controversial advances in science and technology is the use of genetically modified embryos in which the study exceeds stem cell research. Scientists have begun planning for research involving human embryos in the genetic modification field. Many technological developments are responsible for improving our living standards and even saving lives, but often such accomplishments have troubling cultural and moral ramifications (Reagan, 2015). We are already beyond the days in which virtually the only procreative option was for a man and a woman to conceive the old-fashioned way (Reagan, 2015). Genetic modification of human embryos can be perceived as a positive evolution in the medical process yet it is surrounded by controversy due to ethical processes. Because this form of genetic modification could affect later born children and their offspring, the protection of human subjects should be a priority in decisions about whether to proceed with such research (Dresser, 2004). The term Human Genetic Engineering was originally made public in 1970. During this time there were several methods biologists began to devise in order to better identify or isolate clone genes for manipulation in several species or mutating them in humans.

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,

In the past thirty years, humans are witnessing a huge revolution in the genetic engineering industry. Having identified most of the Human Genome, gene sequencing has become programmed and extremely fast, and laboratory techniques in molecular biology allow for in-vitro fertilization and transfer of genetic material. Gene therapy and repair based on stem cells research allows for replacement of a defected allele in the DNA, and even a whole damaged tissue in the patient. In general, it is accurate to say that genetic engineering is a controversial topic about which people tend to have strong opinions. The genetic engineering issues that mainly catch the attention of the moral community involve the

With these new discoveries in public light, a debate has started that continues to this day. In this debate, some fear that humanity should not be meddling with DNA, and the doing so could have grave consequences. This debate has also raised moral questions over tampering with human DNA and as a result the U.S. Government prohibited federal funding toward most stem cell research until the current Presidential Administration came into office.

Altering embryos to give humans ideal genes is not science fiction. Using CRISPR to manipulate DNA, scientists can give children specific eye or hair color, or more importantly, a guaranteed prevention of genetic diseases later in life. This guarantee comes with conditions, that DNA manipulation are and its outcomes are ethically debatable and the outcomes would ultimately be detrimental to society. Human embryos should not be edited because it would engineer a race of genetically superior people, creating ethical issues between “natural” humans and “superior” humans.

Genetic modification of human embryos is an issue of utmost relevance as technology continually advances, with recent findings offering prospects that could only be covered in science fiction, and thus I feel a discussion is necessary to think properly about the implications of this progress. The embryo is the combination of sperm and egg cell that is the building block of us all, the genes that determine who we are. It is this original stage of human life that is important as it can now be modified due to advancements in genetic modification, offering the chance to prevent genetic diseases as the relevant sequence of DNA that would be responsible for it can be cut out and replaced. This is shown through developments in Asia, as the first use of a pioneering gene editing system CRISPR/Cas 9 to cure the genetic disease β-thalassaemia (Liang et al., 2015), which is a blood disorder that can be fatal. This indicates why embryos are a subject of experimentation, as they can potentially be engineered so that a disease is eradicated. Developments are putting molecular biology in the spotlight of the media (Knapton, 2015) and creating opportunities that are both exciting and worrying, putting the human identity into question. This is because our genes’ code for proteins that decide our