“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 …show more content…
“Stem cell researchers believe that much greater results could be achieved by using embryonic stem cells because these cells can differentiate into a far greater number of cell types” (potential uses for stem cells). Stem cells are affected heavily by their environment. For example, “researchers have taken adult stem cells from the brains of rats and put them in bone marrow and watched, in astonishment, as they spewed out blood cells” (Gorman). When harvesting embryonic cells the embryo is destroyed essentially ending any chance of life. On the other hand, somatic stem cells can be found within humans throughout any stage of life and obtaining these cells result in no harm to the donator. However, somatic cells do not have near the same promise as embryonic cells but, they still have many uses. Thus, these cells challenge both the boundaries of science and boundaries of our morals to obtain a healthy life.
In 2001, George W. Bush outlawed federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research (Thompson). Without proper funding for the research the scientists were restricted by their funds to finding the cures they’ve dedicated their life to. Since the the government stopped funding the research the progress essentially halted however, in 2009 things changed. In a landmark decision, President Obama lifted the ban on the funding of stem cell research with the signing of an executive order on March 9th. According to President Obama in his
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
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
“How can the use of stem cells be so controversial?”, one may ask. If the stem cells are donated out of free will or were going to be destroyed anyway, how can putting them to better use be controversial? Sure, a potential life must be destroyed to save a life, but only before one can tell that it is a human. Should the use of stem cells for medical research and use be regulated? These questions and more will be discussed and pondered throughout this paper.
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
These misconceptions include the belief that the use of stem cells in treating conditions is completely effective and without side effects. Also, the article explains the rationale and science behind the belief that life begins at conception. The author, Dr. Kelly Hollowell, has a Ph.D. in Molecular and Cellular Pharmacology. With the author’s amount of education, the article has credibility. She has the opinion that life begins at conception, therefore embryonic stem cell research is ethically unacceptable.
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 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
This news was welcome news for the medical society, and those suffering from such a disease. Since the 1970s, stem cell research has been funded to study, but not until 1998 were embryonic stem cells able to get isolated, giving them potential to be turned into an unlimited variety of cell types. In 1998, Dr. James Thompson at the University of Wisconsin first discovered how to successfully isolate human embryonic stem cells. This discovery created much debate from a philosophical, religious, political, and moral standpoint. The division of viewpoints was especially prevalent after this discovery because in order to isolate an embryonic stem cell for research, it must be destroyed. Even though it is many times the case that the debate of stem cell research is a matter of someone being pro-life or pro-choice, this is not always the case. In fact, it is found that many people are opposed to human suffering more than anything, causing them to agree with embryonic stem cell research as a way to potentially alleviate human suffering due to disease. There are many different religions with radical followers that do believe that a human embryo contains at least some moral status, making the destruction of a human embryo considered to be murder. Then there is the philosophical point that some take that an embryo has no moral status because it isn’t able to anticipate the future, or have any personal desires for its’ future. Although there are different opinions on
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
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.
In the contemporary world of today, the issue of embryonic stem cell research is one of this controversial significant topic regarding which there is neither fair/moral agreement nor understandable, wide-ranging laws. As far as the ethical debate is concerned, it focuses on the verifiable piece of information that stem cell research consists of destroying the very early embryos of the human beings. The federal government has restricted the financial support for stem cell research to research that makes use of the stem cells obtained from a small amount of stem cell "lines" (Shapiro, 2006).
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
There are two different types of stem cells that are used in research: embryonic stem cells and non-embryonic “somatic” or “adult” stem cells, (NIH). Embryonic stem cells are derived from human embryos and are usually obtained through the process of in vitro fertilization in a laboratory setting. According to Bevington, embryonic stem cells are left over from attempted fertilization in fertility clinics and are donated to research by the patient with consent, (Bevington 2005). What makes embryonic stem cell research unethical is that the human embryo is destroyed through the research process. Adult stem cells are found among differentiated cells in a tissue or organ. The purpose of adult stem cells is to
Just recently, in March of 2009, President Obama lifted the Federal ban on the funding stating: “At this moment, the full promise of stem cell research remains unknown and it should not be overstated. But scientists believe these tiny cells may have the potential to help us understand, and possibly cure, some of our most devastating diseases and conditions.” Obama believes, like many others, that this type of research, though ethically triggering, can improve the survival rate of some diseases and in turn improve the live span of many worldwide. “Medical miracles do not happen simply by accident. They result from painstaking and costly research, from years of lonely trial and error, much of which never bears fruit, and from a government willing to support that work.” Obama also understand that research like this can take years to produce a positive and worthwhile result, but in order to produce such a result, support is needed by both the government and the people. He understands the costs, but believes that the benefits outweigh them. (“Obama on lifting…”)
In 2001, with 22 human embryonic stem cell lines established, President George W. Bush signed legislation which prevented new, additional stem cell lines from being created and tightened restrictions on federal stem cell research funding. This legislation effectively constrained human embryonic stem cell research until 2009, when President Barack Obama reversed Bush’s legislation and relaxed the funding criteria. There are now 195 human embryonic stem cell lines being researched today. The current era of innovative research will likely change, however, if the political climate reverts back to a conservative “pro-life” rhetoric with the coming election. This would be disastrous for scientists performing stem cell research, and the voting public should not allow this to happen by selecting a candidate who unequivocally supports human embryonic stem cell research.