English 1010: Position Paper
Matthew Felsted
Stem Cell Research: What’s the Problem?
Stem cell research has been an uproarious study. This science involves the study of cells that have not yet grown into the cells that they will be permanently. Over 200 cell types originate from stem cells. The body naturally coaxes the cells to specialize into whatever cell is needed. It seems ethically simple from the outlook. A closer understanding reveals that the original means of obtaining these cells for research requires an embryo for harvesting. If you think of it, an embryo is really just an undeveloped person. This is the main controversy. However, a new source for stem cells has been found. The source is adult stem cells. Stem cell research has called forth a wall of opposition all in the critical but outdated belief that stem cell research destroys one life to save another. This argument applies only to embryonic stem cells but not adult stem cells. Research should be encouraged, there ought to be more media coverage, should be considered researching a cure for particular diseases, and be focused mainly on adult stem cells over embryonic or fetal stem cells derived from other sources. Stem cell research is and should remain restricted to adult stem cells. Some experts believe all stem cell types should be researched, including fetal, embryonic, and IPS. Research should mainly be focused on IPS and non-destructive research be allowed on embryonic. Research on fetal and embryonic stem cells may require the destruction of both sources.
Once an embryo develops and changes into a fetus it carries the moral weight and controversy of abortion. It seems unavoidable that some or all of the fetuses being studied would require them to be put to destruction. That is almost like doing fatal research on living and breathing babies! Few could morally juxtapose the image of a cooing baby giving their life to make medicine to save an elderly adult. That is wrong and taking the idea to an insensitive extreme. That is why I find it easier to support adult stem cell research and give less support of experts that demand research on all types.
Why is this research seen as so important? Stem cells can potentially replace cell loss in the brain associated with Alzheimer’s Disease. It can do the same for Parkinson’s Disease. Stem cells are also believed to be able to be used to cure Diabetes, Heart Disease, damage caused by strokes, cancer, and other serious diseases. One day they could also be used to regenerate limbs and organs.
Even body parts can be created from stem cells. Reported on Saturday, 10 October 2009 on the BBC website, scientists were actually able to reconstruct a jaw bone entirely from stem cells. Stem cells derived from adult stem cells, not from potentially life destroying embryonic stem cells. Stem cells have also been used to create skin grafts for burn victims and people with skin diseases.
The whole subject seems to echo the controversy on abortion. Destructive research on embryos brings up furry. Jan Deckers states in the Bioethics Scijournal: “The notion of ‘moral status’ refers here to the status possessed by every member within the class of beings that deserve the greatest degree of respect in equal measure. Embryos attain such status from the start of fertilisation, that is: before their genetic identity has been created. ” (pg. 252). On January 22, 2001, the UK became the first to approve of embryonic stem cell research and ‘therapeutic cloning’ (Deckers 252).
Other experts argue that embryonic stem cell research is not immoral if the stem cells are at insentient level of development. Bonnie Steinbock a prominent ethicist. Rather than viewing embryos as undeveloped people, the view is on whether the embryo is developed enough to be considered sentient. Her claim is that embryos don’t have enough in common with developing babies to have moral weight until 12 weeks of growth (Deckers 255). She puts forth a persuasive argument.
Celebrity endorsements of embryonic stem cell research over the last decade include Nancy Reagan, Michael J. Fox, Christopher Reeves. The largest organization that also has provided the strongest opposition to ESCR is the Catholic Church. Their strong opposition has lead them to fund the next best alternative to ESCR, adult stem cell research (huffingtonpost).
Loud and vocal outrage erupted in the scientific community on Aug. 25th, 2010 when the federal government passed a ban on funding. One concerned director at the University of Michigan, Sam Morrison, stated “If the ruling cannot be lifted soon, this will do irreparable harm to the field” (Abcnews go). The issue has been contentious and split along party lines. George Bush signed a bill banning stem cell research only to be over turned by Barack Obama (Web. Stem cell history). The original ban on federal funding possibly tilted the American public in favor of the Obama administration lead by scientists and researchers.
So what’s the main problem? Hasn’t the issue been resolved? The topic seems to have come to equilibrium with both sides meeting on some mutual agreement on both sides. Yet there is still controversy and contention because some experts argue that all types of stem cells should be studied, even if it requires the destruction of the object of study. This would require the destruction of life. Some experts contend that fetal and embryonic sources for stem cells are necessary sacrifices for science. Research should mainly be focused on IPS and non destructive research be allowed on embryonic. Research on fetal and embryonic stem cells may require the destruction of both sources.
Countries around the globe differ in the approach to the ethics question. China, Australia, and India have little or no restriction on stem cell research. The United States has restrictions and is labeled “responsible research”.
With all this information I find it favorable to avoid the controversy and promote adult stem cell research over other forms. Celebrity endorsements influence the public. Where they started public interest, large organizations shifted it to the least controversial direction. Given that some needed information can only be obtained from embryonic stem cell lines, then research ought to be done in a way that doesn’t destroy the embryo. With all the benefits and all the potential of stem cell research, it wouldn’t hurt to excite the public about adult stem cell research.
Works Cited (Works consulted)
1. The Center for Bioethics and Dignity. “An Overview of Stem Cell Research”. 2011. Web. Retrieved 27th. 2011. http://cbhd.org/stem-cell-research/overview
2. Cancer Treatment Centers of America. “Stem Cells Used in Cancer Therapies”. 2011. Web. Retrieved 27th. Apr. 2011. http://www.cancercenter.com/stem-cells.htm
3. Stem Cell Research. 2011. Web. Retrieved 28th, Apr. 2011. http://www.stemcellresearch.org/
4. BBC. “Jaw Bone Created from Stem Cells”. 10 October 2009. Web. Retrieved 28th, Apr. 2011. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8290138.stm
5. Stem Cell History. 2011. Web. Retrieved 28th, 2011. http://stemcellhistory.com/stem-cell-research-timeline/
6. Walsh, Fergus. “Ban on stem-cell patents ‘wrong’”. 27th, April 2011.Web. Retrieved 28th, 2011. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-13214036
7. Hutchison, Courtney. ABC News Medical Unit. 25th Aug. 2011. Web. Retrieved 28th Apr. 2011. http://abcnews.go.com/Health/WellnessNews/scientists-outraged-block-stem-cell-research/story?id=11469249
8. Stem Cell Information. “National Institutes of Health Guidelines on Human Stem Cell Research.” 2009. Web. Retrieved 28th. Apr. 2011. http://stemcells.nih.gov/policy/2009guidelines.htm
9. The Pew Forum. “Stem Cell Research Around the World”. 17th Jul. 2011. Web. Retrieved 28th, Apr. 2011. http://pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethics/Stem-Cell-Researh-Around-the-World.aspx
10. Deckers, Jan. “WHY CURRENT UK LEGISLATION ON EMBRYO RESEARCH IS IMMORAL. HOW THE ARGUMENT FROM LACK OF QUALITIES AND THE ARGUMENT FROM POTENTIALITY HAVE BEEN APPLIED AND WHY THEY SHOULD BE REJECTED”. BIOETHICS (SCI JOURNAL) 2005 252-255. Print. BLACKWELL PUBLISHING United Kingdom.
11. Malcom Ritter. “Adult Stem Cell Research Far Ahead of Embryonic, University Experts Say”. 2 Aug, 2010. Web. Retrieved 28th. Apr 2011. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/02/adult-stem-cell-research-_n_666936.html
Stem Cell Research: What’s the Problem?
Stem cell research has been an uproarious study. This science involves the study of cells that have not yet grown into the cells that they will be permanently. Over 200 cell types originate from stem cells. The body naturally coaxes the cells to specialize into whatever cell is needed. It seems ethically simple from the outlook. A closer understanding reveals that the original means of obtaining these cells for research requires an embryo for harvesting. If you think of it, an embryo is really just an undeveloped person. This is the main controversy. However, a new source for stem cells has been found. The source is adult stem cells. Stem cell research has called forth a wall of opposition all in the critical but outdated belief that stem cell research destroys one life to save another. This argument applies only to embryonic stem cells but not adult stem cells. Research should be encouraged, there ought to be more media coverage, should be considered researching a cure for particular diseases, and be focused mainly on adult stem cells over embryonic or fetal stem cells derived from other sources. Stem cell research is and should remain restricted to adult stem cells. Some experts believe all stem cell types should be researched, including fetal, embryonic, and IPS. Research should mainly be focused on IPS and non-destructive research be allowed on embryonic. Research on fetal and embryonic stem cells may require the destruction of both sources.
Once an embryo develops and changes into a fetus it carries the moral weight and controversy of abortion. It seems unavoidable that some or all of the fetuses being studied would require them to be put to destruction. That is almost like doing fatal research on living and breathing babies! Few could morally juxtapose the image of a cooing baby giving their life to make medicine to save an elderly adult. That is wrong and taking the idea to an insensitive extreme. That is why I find it easier to support adult stem cell research and give less support of experts that demand research on all types.
Why is this research seen as so important? Stem cells can potentially replace cell loss in the brain associated with Alzheimer’s Disease. It can do the same for Parkinson’s Disease. Stem cells are also believed to be able to be used to cure Diabetes, Heart Disease, damage caused by strokes, cancer, and other serious diseases. One day they could also be used to regenerate limbs and organs.
Even body parts can be created from stem cells. Reported on Saturday, 10 October 2009 on the BBC website, scientists were actually able to reconstruct a jaw bone entirely from stem cells. Stem cells derived from adult stem cells, not from potentially life destroying embryonic stem cells. Stem cells have also been used to create skin grafts for burn victims and people with skin diseases.
The whole subject seems to echo the controversy on abortion. Destructive research on embryos brings up furry. Jan Deckers states in the Bioethics Scijournal: “The notion of ‘moral status’ refers here to the status possessed by every member within the class of beings that deserve the greatest degree of respect in equal measure. Embryos attain such status from the start of fertilisation, that is: before their genetic identity has been created. ” (pg. 252). On January 22, 2001, the UK became the first to approve of embryonic stem cell research and ‘therapeutic cloning’ (Deckers 252).
Other experts argue that embryonic stem cell research is not immoral if the stem cells are at insentient level of development. Bonnie Steinbock a prominent ethicist. Rather than viewing embryos as undeveloped people, the view is on whether the embryo is developed enough to be considered sentient. Her claim is that embryos don’t have enough in common with developing babies to have moral weight until 12 weeks of growth (Deckers 255). She puts forth a persuasive argument.
Celebrity endorsements of embryonic stem cell research over the last decade include Nancy Reagan, Michael J. Fox, Christopher Reeves. The largest organization that also has provided the strongest opposition to ESCR is the Catholic Church. Their strong opposition has lead them to fund the next best alternative to ESCR, adult stem cell research (huffingtonpost).
Loud and vocal outrage erupted in the scientific community on Aug. 25th, 2010 when the federal government passed a ban on funding. One concerned director at the University of Michigan, Sam Morrison, stated “If the ruling cannot be lifted soon, this will do irreparable harm to the field” (Abcnews go). The issue has been contentious and split along party lines. George Bush signed a bill banning stem cell research only to be over turned by Barack Obama (Web. Stem cell history). The original ban on federal funding possibly tilted the American public in favor of the Obama administration lead by scientists and researchers.
So what’s the main problem? Hasn’t the issue been resolved? The topic seems to have come to equilibrium with both sides meeting on some mutual agreement on both sides. Yet there is still controversy and contention because some experts argue that all types of stem cells should be studied, even if it requires the destruction of the object of study. This would require the destruction of life. Some experts contend that fetal and embryonic sources for stem cells are necessary sacrifices for science. Research should mainly be focused on IPS and non destructive research be allowed on embryonic. Research on fetal and embryonic stem cells may require the destruction of both sources.
Countries around the globe differ in the approach to the ethics question. China, Australia, and India have little or no restriction on stem cell research. The United States has restrictions and is labeled “responsible research”.
With all this information I find it favorable to avoid the controversy and promote adult stem cell research over other forms. Celebrity endorsements influence the public. Where they started public interest, large organizations shifted it to the least controversial direction. Given that some needed information can only be obtained from embryonic stem cell lines, then research ought to be done in a way that doesn’t destroy the embryo. With all the benefits and all the potential of stem cell research, it wouldn’t hurt to excite the public about adult stem cell research.
Works Cited (Works consulted)
1. The Center for Bioethics and Dignity. “An Overview of Stem Cell Research”. 2011. Web. Retrieved 27th. 2011. http://cbhd.org/stem-cell-research/overview
2. Cancer Treatment Centers of America. “Stem Cells Used in Cancer Therapies”. 2011. Web. Retrieved 27th. Apr. 2011. http://www.cancercenter.com/stem-cells.htm
3. Stem Cell Research. 2011. Web. Retrieved 28th, Apr. 2011. http://www.stemcellresearch.org/
4. BBC. “Jaw Bone Created from Stem Cells”. 10 October 2009. Web. Retrieved 28th, Apr. 2011. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8290138.stm
5. Stem Cell History. 2011. Web. Retrieved 28th, 2011. http://stemcellhistory.com/stem-cell-research-timeline/
6. Walsh, Fergus. “Ban on stem-cell patents ‘wrong’”. 27th, April 2011.Web. Retrieved 28th, 2011. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-13214036
7. Hutchison, Courtney. ABC News Medical Unit. 25th Aug. 2011. Web. Retrieved 28th Apr. 2011. http://abcnews.go.com/Health/WellnessNews/scientists-outraged-block-stem-cell-research/story?id=11469249
8. Stem Cell Information. “National Institutes of Health Guidelines on Human Stem Cell Research.” 2009. Web. Retrieved 28th. Apr. 2011. http://stemcells.nih.gov/policy/2009guidelines.htm
9. The Pew Forum. “Stem Cell Research Around the World”. 17th Jul. 2011. Web. Retrieved 28th, Apr. 2011. http://pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethics/Stem-Cell-Researh-Around-the-World.aspx
10. Deckers, Jan. “WHY CURRENT UK LEGISLATION ON EMBRYO RESEARCH IS IMMORAL. HOW THE ARGUMENT FROM LACK OF QUALITIES AND THE ARGUMENT FROM POTENTIALITY HAVE BEEN APPLIED AND WHY THEY SHOULD BE REJECTED”. BIOETHICS (SCI JOURNAL) 2005 252-255. Print. BLACKWELL PUBLISHING United Kingdom.
11. Malcom Ritter. “Adult Stem Cell Research Far Ahead of Embryonic, University Experts Say”. 2 Aug, 2010. Web. Retrieved 28th. Apr 2011. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/02/adult-stem-cell-research-_n_666936.html