The Heated Debate Concerning Stem Cell Research Essay

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

If we were unable to research or experiment to better our society, we would not be anywhere near where we currently are in the medical world. The benefits of stem cell research really could push us that much more forward and get us that much closer to possibly finding cures for incurable diseases. This is a huge milestone for science and should continue to be researched. However, no matter the benefits stem cell research has and will remain an ethical debate for many years to come. We need to be able to open our mind to all the opportunities that stem cell research could generate instead of automatically jumping to conclusions regarding

The 21st century however forecasts an astonishing increase in innovation in another direction. While previously overshadowed by its larger cousins, physics and chemistry, it seems likely that the biological sciences will steal the limelight in the future. Mapping the genome, reversing the aging process, and finding a cure for terminal illnesses, all represent primary objectives for science. Unfortunately, the ethical questions posed by innovations in biomedicine are far greater than those posed by advances in the physical sciences. Reproductive cloning is one of these innovations, and one that arguably poses the greatest threat to the world as we know it. The universal truth, blindly accepted by man for millennia, held that a human could only be born through the sexual union of a male and a female, to be exact, of an egg and a sperm. By cloning, however, a human life can be created in the laboratory. This is done by taking human DNA and inserting it into an egg cell, sans genetic material. The resultant cell is identical to the original, and can then be inserted into a uterus, either a human or an animal one, and be grown to term, to produce a baby, while circumventing nature’s means of reproduction.

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.

Embryonic stem cell research has been a highly controversial topic for several years. The question of how far science is supposed to push human life has many sides, each warring against each other. In 2010, in the Sherley v. Sebelius case, allowing research involving human embryonic cells was brought into question once again, after Presidents Bush and Obama had dealt with the matter in previous years. At the end of the case in April of 2011, The District Court of Appeals decided to overturn the preliminary injunction, which actually had allowed federal funding the research experimenting with human embryos to continue. While this case was closed, the topic still is not. Stem cell research as a whole faces judgement from many who think it is

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,

While few can debate the potential “miracle cure” aspect that seems to be wrapped within stem cell research, the method for obtaining such cells has been a topic for debate. The process of extracting pluripotent cells destroys their host embryo, and as yet, no pluripotent cells have been found in older adult tissues. Opponents of research on embryonic cells claim that embryos – from the moment that fertilization occurs – are sentient human beings and should therefore be afforded the same protections against abuse as anyone else (“The Cases For”). But what if a method were readily available were viable stem cells could be extracted from an embryo in a manner that would not deny life – however such life were defined – to the unborn fetus? What if such a potential solution could ease the minds of not only those who oppose stem cell research but also help to quell the dispute of another “Do Not Kill” issue – abortion?

Many different groups of people protest stem cell research. Some protesters say that getting stem cells from embryos amounts to killing a person to improve the life of another (Freedman 18). People protest stem cell research even though the embryos and fetuses would be discarded anyway (Freedman 19). They think if it is accepted, they will start experimenting on people who are going to die, like death row inmates and terminally ill people (Freedman 22). Some supporters of stem cell research say that using tissue from dead embryos is equivalent to transplanting organs from people that died from homicide or suicide. They say stem cell experiments in animals have already shown improvements in disorders. Treatments for diseases and disorders can’t be developed if experiments aren’t performed.

Stem cell research is an important topic and it will continue to be for years to come. Saving the lives of others and helping them is what our ultimate goal should be. Killing and harming lives is not should not be the answer. The main goal in life should always be to save as many lives as possible. Limiting the research to only using adult stem cells could very well be the way around all the controversy. Science and health care are always changing and new discoveries will be found. Hopefully one day ESC research will no longer be a topic of

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

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.

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

Dictators, tyrants and emperors have had a tremendous impact of the making of Western Civilization. In building empires, partaking in wars and controlling the masses, all past leaders had one thing in common: strategies. These strategies helped expand their lands, gain many victories, but especially helped with gaining a loyal civilization. A loyal civilization is the base of a successful dictatorship. The novel, Animal Farm, by George Orwell highlights many strategies used to gain, maintain and control the common people in order to achieve the ideal dictatorship society that the pigs want. The animals begin with a hearty embrace to change and to carry out Old Major’s vision and dreams for an ideal world for the animals. However, once he dies,

Stem cell research is a very interesting topic. Many people debate over the ethics of stem cell research. This correlates with dangerous knowledge and it having a loose definition because of the fiery debate behind it. The central topic behind the debate over stem cell research is when a person “becomes a person.” This is because in stem cell research, they take an aborted fetus (about 10 days old), and they take the embryonic (best form) stem cells out of it.

Before going in depth with the viewpoints and opinions involved in the topic of bioethics, we must first ask, what is bioethics? Well, bioethics is the studying of a topic that has aspects that are controversial both legally, and morally. There is a line between what experiments or studies are legal, and what is morally proper and ethical. Scientists take on a role and are responsible for the proper use of their power and ability to manipulate parts of the human body. We have these ethical standards to ensure that the things being carried out in the lab is both humane and helpful. Before any science experiments can really be held, the scientists ask themselves if they CAN, the law asks if they MAY, and morality asks if they SHOULD conduct such experiments. Bioethics is the theory surrounding these 3 questions, and whether the answer to any of the 3 be a yes or no, it’s hard to find any one experiment that does not have its controversial debates pertaining either the legality, or morality in nature. Scientists who have focused on stem cell research have had an ongoing ethical battle. For example, in the article “Saving Superman: Ethics and Stem Cell Research,” an article focused on Christopher Reeve’s accident leaving him paralyzed due to a separation in his spine, he himself was an advocate for stem cell research. Though he knew that it could possibly help is condition and