Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Controversy of stem cell research
Essay on embryonic stem cell controversy
Government funding to embryonic stem cell research
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Controversy of stem cell research
Embryonic stem cell research is dealing with embryos that the female no longer wishes to keep. Females having fertility issues can donate their unused eggs to scientific research. Scientist help boost fertility by giving the female a drug which produces more eggs. They then take the eggs and put them in a petri dish and fertilize them. Once the egg is fertilized, then the scientist plants the embryo into the female. The other fertilized eggs can either be frozen or donate them to scientific research. Scientist says they can use embryonic stem cells to fix diseases (“Stem Cell Research”). However, many people believe research should not be done on embryos. The United States government should not fund embryonic stem cell research because the …show more content…
In 2009, President Obama decided to offer more funding for the embryonic stem cell research. Federal judge Royce C. Lamberth ruled President Obama’s orders as a violation of the Dickey-Wicker amendment (Rodriguez). The president is sworn to uphold the laws of the United States government, yet he chose to break the Dickey-Wicker amendment. The amendment simply bands any funding from the US government to be provided to any research that makes or terminates the human embryo (Kearl). The Dickey-Wicker amendment is the only law that stands in the way of the embryonic stem cell research (Kearl). However, there should be other laws in place to make it even harder for embryonic stem cell research to even …show more content…
Scientist should use the available stem cells instead of take the stem cells from the very inadequate resources (Leeb 10). C. Leeb states, “Haematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) are capable of differentiating into all myeloid and lymphoid lineages” (11). The adult stem cells are all throughout the body (King 53). So, why does scientist not just use the adult stem cells to cure things such as blindness? Sure the adult stem cells are limited to what the cell can form into, but they can still be used to cure diseases (King 54). The adult stem cells have a lower risk of side effects than the embryonic stem cells do (Leng 49). So, the adult stem cells seem much safer to use than the embryonic stem cells. The adult stem cells are capable of curing disease just like the embryonic stem cells. However, they tend to be a safer than the embryonic stem cells. Scientist can use adult stem cells without having to destroy a life of an adult whereas the scientist destroys the embryo when extracting stem cells from
Stem cell research has always been a widely debated topic in 'social and political forums' ever since the case of Roe vs. Wade in 1973. In that case the Supreme Court gave women the right to have an abortion whether or not they have a medical reason to. Whereas beforehand 'they needed a medical reason'. This "sparked controversy" over stem cell research with aborted fetuses. For many of those in favor of using fetal tissue for research it has too much "potential" in the future of medicine in terms of providing cures for diseases and "". Those against fetal tissue research believe it unethical to take one human life in order to preserve another.
Are stem cells ethical to use in medical research? The most basic cells in the human body are stem cells. Because doctors use stem cells for medical treatment of chronic ailments, stem cells play an important role in human medical research. However, despite the benefits of stem cells in medical treatment, controversy surrounds the methods employed to obtain them. Should researchers continue to use stem cells?
The Nobel laureates' inaccurate letter to President Bush urging him to feed federal funds to human-embryo stem-cell research has had PR value in the media. It perpetuates a number of misconceptions and misleading statements regarding stem-cell research, particularly embryonic as opposed to adult stem-cell research, and will serve to continue to cloud the issue. Some of these deceptive statements are the subject of this essay.
Stem cell therapy is a controversial topic that falls on the list of things not to discuss over thanksgiving dinner, very much like religion and politics. While the potential of stem cell research and therapy stand to make leaps of progression in cures for disease like Cancer and Alzheimer’s; Pros, Cons and morality still surround the issue.
One of the most heated political battles in the United States in recent years has been over the morality of embryonic stem cell research. The embryonic stem cell debate has polarized the country into those who argue that such research holds promises of ending a great deal of human suffering and others who condemn such research as involving the abortion of a potential human life. If any answer to the ethical debate surrounding this particular aspect of stem cell research exists, it is a hazy one at best. The question facing many scientists and policymakers involved in embryonic stem cell research is, which is more valuable – the life of a human suffering from a potentially fatal illness or injury, or the life of human at one week of development? While many argue that embryonic stem cell research holds the potential of developing cures for a number of illnesses that affect many individuals, such research is performed at the cost of destroying a life and should therefore not be pursued.
Stem cell research is a heavily debated topic that can stir trouble in even the tightest of Thanksgiving tables. The use cells found in the cells of embryos to replicate dead or dying cells is a truly baffling thought. To many, stem cell research has the potential to be Holy Grail of modern medicine. To many others, it is ultimately an unethical concept regardless of its capabilities. Due to how divided people are on the topic of stem cell research, its legality and acceptance are different everywhere. According to Utilitarianism, stem cell research should be permitted due to the amount of people it can save, however according to the Divine Command of Christianity, the means of collecting said stem cells are immoral and forbidden.
...ting embryos specifically for stem cell research should not be allowed. Continued stem cell research will benefit all of mankind with its promise of medical advances. Opponents’ concerns about destroying human life will be quelled because stem cells will be taken from already doomed embryos. The federal government will be able to regulate the research and ensure that it is lawfully conducted.
Webb, S. (2009). Stem cell research is suffering due to the lack of federal funding. In A.
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 by the President’s Council in January of 2004 to make the public aware of the significant developments in the science and medical aspects of stem cell research. It also describes the ethical, legal and political implications that stem cell research may create. However, since the research is still in its beginning stages, this “update” does not describe a complete or definitive study of stem cells nor does it provide specific guidelines or regulations. This is a report that is suppose to help the President, Congress and general public make better-informed decisions as to the direction that we should go with stem cells.
Few advances in modern science have generated as much excitement and public debate as the discovery of human embryonic stem cells (hESC). The debate over the use of embryonic stem cells in research has polarized the global community along the lines of those who argue that such research holds the promise of medical breakthroughs for many currently incurable diseases and ailments, while opponents condemn such research as it involves the destruction of a potential human life and is seen as humanity “playing God”. There are no clear cut answers to the moral debate concerning this particular area of stem cell research. At the core of the debate lies the ethical question of which is the more valuable; the life of a human being suffering from a fatal illness or life threatening injury, or the life of a potential human being? These are the difficult questions faced by both the scientists engaged in the research, the legislators who define the laws governing such research and the public as a whole. While many agree that embryonic stem cell research has the potential of developing treatments for a number of afflictions that affect humankind, if such research cannot be performed without the the cost of destroying a life it should therefore not be pursued.
Due to public awareness of science, people started realise that the stem cells have the potential in developing cell-based therapies for many uncured diseases. Objectors claimed that it is morally wrong for the government to advocate stem cell research because the research demands embryos’ destruction (National Bioethics Advisory Committee [NBAC], 1999, as cited in Nisbet, 2004).’’It’s immoral that hundreds of thousands of embryos are discarded yearly instead of used to research cures for human suffering.” (Gilbert, 2008).In 2001, President George W. Bush made his stand to oppose the stem cell research by l...
Are embryonic stem cells the cure to many of the human body’s ailments, including defective organs and crippling diseases, or is their use a blatant disregard of human rights and the value of life? Thanks to the rapid advancements in this field, the potential benefits of stem cells are slowly becoming a reality. However, embryonic stem cell research is an extremely divisive topic in the United States thanks to the ethical issues surrounding terminating embryos to harvest the stem cells. In response to this debate, Congress passed the Dickey-Wicker amendment in 1995 to prohibit federal funding of research that involved the destruction of embryos. President Bush affirmed this decision, but more recently, President Obama lifted many of these restrictions.
This belief is wrong. Many countries including the United States have laws regarding embryonic stem cells. The United States has limits on when you can take embryos and there off course has to be consent from the donor of the stem cells. All these regulations are being met and the research is being done safely and in a way that always keeps safety as a first priority. New procedures and uses of stem cells also have to be deemed safe or the risks have to at least be shared before treatment can take place. These regulations make sure stem cells are being used in a safe way and that you know the facts about the way researchers are using
Stem cell research should be allowed on adults but not on humans. Only allowed on humans who are willing to be a part of the stem cell research but no one should be used against their own will. Embryos should not be used for embryonic stem cell research. An embryo being used for their stem cells and then discarded devalues that human life. This follows along the same unethical issue as abortion. When stem cells are removed from human embryos, a unique individual dies. However, if abortion is legal in the state that this research is conducted than research may be conducted on only aborted fetuses. That would be an...
The stem cell research controversy is one of the major headlines in bioscience and has been discussed and debated numerous times throughout the last decade or so. It became a major issue in 1997/1998 and continued into the 2000’s where George W. Bush joined the problem by vetoing the first bid that was brought forward by Congress to lift funding restrictions on human embryonic stem cell research. Bush stated after the veto that, “would support the taking of innocent human life in the hope of finding medical benefits for others” and also stated “It crosses a moral boundary that our decent society needs to respect”. Bush was also supported by children that he said, “began his or her life as a frozen embryo that was created for in vitro fertilization (in vitro means the technique of performing an experiment in a controlled environment outside of a living organism) but remained unused after the fertility treatments were complete.