Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Embryonic stem cell research pros and cons
Problem with stem cell research
Stem cell research controversy essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Embryonic stem cell research pros and cons
We all started off as an embryo. At one point in time, we were a small bundle of cells that would one day become who we are today. Those cells were essential to our body and the development of the fetuses that were us. Put yourself in the place of an embryo. You are a small blastocyst or a bunch of cell, only about 0.1 millimeters big. Even though you are slight and may seem insignificant, you hold all the opportunities of life. You have a soul and are alive, because you will become a human. The possibilities are endless; you could be a surfer, an artist, a chef, or anything else you wish. Now, imagine being taken out of the womb and you are killed. Then, experiments are conducted on you. All the potentials are now gone, and in their place is a dead fetus, being poked and prodded for “the advancement of science”. Embryos are being tested on because it “could lead to the discovery of new medical treatments” (Hug 1). Stem cell research can be beneficial, but uses unethical procedures to become beneficial. Stem-cell research destroys embryos that have a moral status, sacrifices one life for another, and is research that could potentially lead to even more harmful scientific advances.
Stem-cell research began in the 1800s.The term was first used in 1868. In 1909, a theory of blood cells coming from one ancestor cells was introduced. In 1957, E. Donnall Thomas attempted a bone marrow transplant. The first successful bone marrow transplant occurred in 1968. In 1981, two scientists studied the stem cells from mice embryos, the first stem cell from an embryo to be isolated. Experiments of mice embryonic stem cells continued until 1998, when the first human stem cells were experimented on. That led to the controversy of stem cell researc...
... middle of paper ...
...ong hands. This research could lead to clones and that could negatively impact the world. Even with all these cons, some people still argue that stem-cell research is good. We can find cures for people, but at the expense of new life. We aren't the ones who decide who lives and who doesn't.
Works Cited
"Boston Children's Hospital." Boston Childrens Hospital. Web. 03 Feb. 2014.
Hug, Kristina. "Embryonic Stem Cell Research: An Ethical Dilemma | Europe's Stem Cell Hub | EuroStemCell." EuroStemCell. EuroStemCell, 23 Mar. 2011. Web. 03 Feb. 2014.
"The New England Journal of Medicine." Embryo Ethics. Massachusetts Medical Society, 15 July 2004. Web. 03 Feb. 2014.
"Stem Cell Research." Explorable. Web. 3 Feb. 2014.
Watson, Stephanie, and Ph.D. Craig Freudenrich. "How Stem Cells Work." HowStuffWorks. HowStuffWorks.com, 11 Nov. 2004. Web. 31 Jan. 2014.
Research on human fetal life involves numerous complex medical, moral, and legal aspects. It is not always easy, nor desirable, to seal off one aspect from another. Both sides of fetal tissue use will be equally focused on as a moral issue. The topic is a timely and important one because research on human fetal life is reportedly a growing industry and the subject of legal developments both in the United States and around the world.
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.
...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.
The conflict surrounding stem cell research is, with ethical consideration, whether it is a good or bad. The majority of Americans are advocates due to the possibilities of medical advancement, thus saving thousands of lives. Those in opposition believe that it is against
With the increased rate of integrating In Vitro Fertilization (IVF), there has been a steep inclination within the associated needs of specifications. Observably, the development of babies using scientific measures was initially formulated and specified for developing the diverse range of development associated with the same (Turriziani, 2014). However, these developments are noted to be creating an adverse impact on the natural course of events and subsequently, resulting with an adverse impact on the natural process of the development of babies. The initial integrations within the system of IVF for developing babies have further been initiated with the effective use of science to develop a healthy baby. Hence, the use of such progressions can be argued as not hampering the ethical needs associated with the same. Conversely, the initial progression within the same and the changes in the use of such practices are identified as unethical, as it has been acting as a threat in the natural course of development of embryos and altering the natural course of events, suspected to be imposing significant influence on infant mortality (Turriziani,
While many support embryonic stem cell research, some people oppose it say that it is an unethical practice. According to these people, embryonic stem cells require murdering a baby, human life is defined by rational beings, those capable of rational thought or a consciousness. In order to be rational one must have a consciousness, the ability to have thoughts and feel pain, to begin with. “For a fertilized egg, there is no consciousness and also no history of consciousness” (Stem). If abortions are allowed within the United States, why shouldn’t embryonic stem cell research be? Another claim against embryonic stem cell research is that it devalues human lives. “Some argue that researching embryonic stem cells will lead us into cloning technology” (Embryonic). While embryonic cloning is a possibility, we already possess the capabilities to clone so cloning is an invalid argument. The final argument against embryonic stem cell research is that there are alternatives, like adult stem cells. While adult stem cells may be utilized, they won’t be as effective. Embryonic stem cells are not only efficient but also renewable. They can be grown in a culture where as adult stem cells are extremely rare, if there are any. They can only be found in mature tissue. Isolating these extremely rare cells is challenging and has a high failure rate if not harvested correctly. “One major difference between adult and embryonic stem cells is their different abilities in the number and type of differentiated cell types they can become” (Stem). Using adult stem cells we might never understand our development from conception ...
People do not want horrible freaks of nature running around, so they want to completely ban stem cell research. There are many stories surrounding the research being done with stem cells. In his article “Who but a Fiend Would Cross Pigs With Men?,” Ian Hunter shows his discontent for the stem cell research methods (Hunter, 2002). He covers a procedure where doctors implanted the stem cells of a human into the egg cells of a pig, and they started to divide within the pig. The scientists terminated the embryos before they could grow very large, but this “study” is way over the line. For no reason should we try to defy the course of nature beyond what is necessary to aid humans survival, such as using antibiotics, and other remedies, but we should not try to create men from animals. His is one reason why stem cells should be at least regulated if not banned. Experiments like this if unchecked could lead to horrible creations from...
"What are stem cells and what are they used for?." 24 April 2001. HowStuffWorks.com. 22 July 2008.
Encyclopedia of Stem Cell Research.
Stem cells are very valuable for many reasons, some of which are as follows: by giving patients the ability to make an entirely new supply of blood, they make it possible for the immune system to regenerate itself. In doing this, it could feasibly allow medical breakthroughs for treating diseases like cancer and AIDS. There is much controversy over who actually should have taken credit for the discovery of stem cells. Back in the 1960's James Till and Ernest McCulloch (from the Ontario Cancer Institute in Toronto ) discovered that after mice were injected with bone marrow cells their spleens developed “nodules” on them, and, upon studying these nodules they noticed that they were loaded with white and red blood cells. They also discovered that, additionally, these cells were able to reproduce themselves. These men said that, “All blood cells arise from a few hematopoietic stem cells, which are hidden away in bone marrow”(2). On the average, these cells produce an ounce of new blood (260 billion new cells) every day. Weissman was studying medicine at Stanford when the before mentioned men developed their theory, and it fascinated him. He decided to pursue the study and see where he could go with it. He soon began to study white cells backwards,...
Stem cell research has been a heated and highly controversial debate for over a decade, which explains why there have been so many articles on the issue. Like all debates, the issue is based on two different arguments: the scientific evolution and the political war against that evolution. The debate proves itself to be so controversial that is both supported and opposed by many different people, organizations, and religions. There are many “emotional images [that] have been wielded” in an attempt to persuade one side to convert to the other (Hirsen). The stem cell research debate, accompanied by different rhetoric used to argue dissimilar points, comes to life in two articles and a speech: “Should Human Cloning Be Allowed? Yes, Don’t Impede Medical Progress” by Virginia Postrel; “Should Human Cloning Be Allowed? No, It’s a Moral Monstrosity” by Eric Cohen and William Kristol; and “Remarks by Ron Reagan, Jr., to the 2004 Democratic National Convention” by Ron Reagan, Jr. Ethos, pathos, and logos are the main categories differentiating the two arguments.
Lanza, Tyler. "The Stem Cell Research Controversy." Stem Cell History. N.p., January 5, 2011. Web. 16 Feb 2012.
Foht, Brendan P. "Three-Parent Embryos Illustrate Ethical Problems with Technologies." Medical Ethics, edited by Noël Merino, Greenhaven Press, 2015. Current Controversies. Opposing Viewpoints in Context,
Pray, Leslie A., Ph.D. “Embryo Screening and the Ethics of Human Genetic Engineering.” Nature.com. Nature Publishing Group, 2008. Web. The Web.
One problem that I think is an issue in the stem cell debate is the destruction of the stem cells and how it’s practically the same thing as destroying a human being. I don’t believe that researchers and scientists should continue using embryonic stem cells for research because we are obviously not finding a cure for human diseases yet although for animals we are, it’s just not right to destroy a human being if we cannot find treatments for major diseases within a decade or so.