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 which can bring about possible cures for such ailments as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and diabetes for example, while opponents condemn such research as it involves the destruction of a potential human life and is seen as mankind “playing God”. There are no clear cut answers to the ethical debate surrounding this particular aspect of stem cell research. The ethical question of which is the more valuable; the life of a human being suffering from a fatal disease or life threatening injury, or the life of a potential human being?, lie at the core of the debate . These are tough questions faced by both the scientists engaged in the research, as well as the legislators who define the laws governing such research.
Cloning is a social sin because it damages society and violates the dignity of human life. People began speculating whether it was possible to clone a human and whether that would be ethical after the cloning of Dolly, the first mammal to be cloned, in 1996. “Many opponents of a ban on human-cloning research point out that the technology used to clone Dolly is not nearly advanced enough to be used to clone humans” (“Cloning”). The successful cloning of Dolly announced to the world that it was possible to clone adult mammals. This raised the possibility that human cloning was still imminent.
A second theory of origins is Intelligent Design, which despite many valid and convincing scientific arguments, is often scorned by scientists simply because it rejects the world’s most popular view. Intelligent Design theorists propose that life, rather than springing up randomly as a product of chance, was carefully designed by a higher and more intelligent being similar to a Christian or Deistic god. Though the simple mention of a creator is scorned by a large portion of the scientific community, proponents of this theory back up their arguments with the overwhelming odds against enough random mutations to create complex life like that which we see today. They also point to the lack of proof of transitional evolutionary forms in the fossil record, and to the recent scientific discoveries of numerous irreducibly complex systems in biology. A system that is irreducibly complex is defined by Michael Behe, the author of Darwin’s Black Box, as “a single system comp... ... middle of paper ... ...sk?
The debate over whether or not the use of genetic engineering in humans is ethical has been a highly controversial topic for the past two decades. True, scientists can genetically manipulate genes in order to help cure genetic diseases, but genetic engineering can also have some undesirable consequences. Not only could genetic engineering harm humans physically, but change the way we view other humans. While the use of genetic engineering in humans can treat and cure some medical conditions, genetic engineering is a discipline that should remain unexplored. Even though scientists have been able to successfully cure and treat many genetic diseases, many experts focus on the possible unknown effects of genetic engineering in humans.
Although science did wonders in the nineteenth century, many people feared science and its effects because of the uncertainty results of science. Our thrist for science can be traced back through many decades. However, the nineteenth century society felt that science was a great investment towards a better life. This investment in science gave the nineteenth century society the discovery of light waves and radio waves, the electric motors, the first photograph and telephone, and the first publication of the periodic table. Science also caused an uproar in society when Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species, which became the scientific basis for the study of the evolution of humans.
Advances in science and technology have yielded a new breed of human thought that has disturbed and shaken the foundations of religious ideology. Our new, scientifically grounded understanding of the universe has unfolded a plethora of answers to age-old questions, which are antithetical to the explanations offered by religion. As strong scientific evidence has surfaced which is contrary to the prevailing religious view, open-minded believers have adapted their beliefs accordingly, but many fundamentalists refuse to accept scientific evidence. This is the root of the dilemma between science and religion. Many philosophers and theists have offered their views concerning the ongoing battle between science and religion.
Over time these changes would result in many completely different species that struggled for survival. The only creature that would survive would be the one that is most adapted via the random evolutionary changes. Changing the ways of thinking about religion, Darwin refuted the traditional thinking of religion as he provided scientific evidence stating how what many had thought to be true to actually be false. Darwin had also led to a shift in the thinking of human behavior. Darwin’s theory was later applied to the human race, as many saw competition between both countries and companies.
When one thinks about animal testing, they usually would think about how much medical breakthroughs animal testing has delivered to society. Other people, however, have different thoughts, and may oppose it, as they believe animal testing is unethical. Animal testing has introduced many medical breakthroughs; rare diseases such as polio, mumps, rubella, and hepatitis would be much more common in modern society if it were not for animal testing (Cook). However, many technological advances are starting to reduce the need to test on innocent animals. Despite its positive history of its many medical discoveries, animal testing should not be tolerated as it is unethical, costly, ignorant, and because many cheaper and more reliable alternatives have been created.
Two, scientists could be creating new inventions; helping with saving money and building new technologies. There is no good possible outcome about this ethical idea of cloning but, yet we do have the negative results of the animal cloning’s that were done since scientist wants to clone human because they've done it to animals before. Which can also be double times harder than animal cloning which such an idea shouldn’t haven’t come to the surface, but it exists in our world. The impact that it will have in our world is more likely to be dangerous and we must be aware of this because it will influence how we live. There's nothing superior that could practically come out of cloning a human being, NOTHING!
By the 1980s and early 1990s, during the presidencies of Ronald Reagan and George Bush, restrictions had been placed on the research of the cloning of human beings. The pro-life groups, which have considerabl e influence in the Republican party, held many concerns about the experimentation and destruction of human embryos, which they consider people with rights, thus they pressured the administration for restrictions on research (cac.psu.edu 1). A series of measures prohibiting federal funding for human cloning were thus implement... ... middle of paper ... ...ly praised, but science that interferes with the creation of human life is seen by many as entirely different. People are still unsure as to whether or not and to what extent scientists should be involved in such a realm. This is, in fact, the prevailing view.