Essay on Stem Cell Research: Should it be Permitted?

Without federal funding, it becomes very hard for medical facilities to continue studying embryonic stem cells.  Almost all of the men and women who we elected to represent us in office are God-fearing people, but not all of them are against the research.   The politicians who do not support the research are generally conservative, where as the ones who are in support of the stem cell research are mostly liberal.  For example, President Bush cut off the federal funding for stem cell research, but President Obama resumed the funding shortly after taking office.  Although, in late August of 2009 a federal judge declared that embryonic stem cell research was once again off limits for federal funding.  The reason for this was because Obama's action violated the previous 1996 Dickey-Wicker amendment which disallows funding for any procedure in which embryos are "created, destroyed, or discarded or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death." In 1999, Harriet Rabb, counsel for the Department of Health and Human Services, determined that human embryonic stem cells that are derived from embryos are not the same as embryos and are therefore immune to the federal funding cuts.   A federal court said that this deciding question was whether or not an embryo was destroyed as a result of the

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…”)

Stem Cell research and its funding have caused a lot of controversy throughout the past years. Stem cells are cells that are present in all living organisms. These cells have the potential to grow into any type of cell, including blood cells, nerves, muscles, and pancreatic cells. Stem cell research is essential because of the beneficial aspects it has to offer. Stem cells could potentially treat conditions such as Alzheimer 's, Parkinson 's, birth defects, strokes, Diabetes, cancer, and help in the reconstruction of severely damaged organs. Although stem cell research withholds great potential for many medical advances, a lot of controversy surrounds the sources and methods of obtaining stem cells and the possibility of improper usage of the knowledge acquired from research and experimentation. It is necessary for scientist to continue research as well as recognizing any ethical issues that may be present.

It has the ability to form any type of specific cell and thus has the greatest potential for treatments in the near future.  A more recent development in stem cell research is the creation of induced pluripotent cells, which are adult cells that become undifferentiated through a series of treatments.  Induced pluripotent stem cells have a number of benefits because the destruction of embryos is not necessary and there are no issues with immune response or rejection because the cells come from the patient.  However, it will be a long time before this type of cell become widely used on humans because the method used is not completely understood and has negative side effects.  In animal testing, “…the virus used to introduce the stem cell factors sometimes causes cancers” (“Stem cell basics”).  Therefore, embryonic stem cells should be an important part of stem cell research.  Even if induced pluripotent cells can replace embryonic cells in the future, the knowledge gained from current embryonic cell research would still be very applicable.   Unfortunately, research is very time and resource intensive, which is where the debate of federal funding comes into play.

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

Those in support of embryonic stem cell research claim that the week-old blastocysts from which embryonic stem cells are derived are merely a cluster of cells and thus do not constitute a human being. Because these cells are “not human,” the embryos should not be afforded the same human rights as are granted to other more advanced stages of cell growth. Many liberals and conservatives alike argue that the potential benefits far outweigh the moral concerns, and for this reason, embryonic stem cell research should be pursued. President Obama issued an executive order revoking President Bush’s previous order that limited funding of research involving human embryonic stem cells for its violation of human rights:

research; conservatives and pro-choice activists are highly against further research, but the tremendous advances in health care and President Bush’s recent decision to fund more

On August 9, 2001 President Bush announced that he would allow limited federal funding for embryonic stem cell research under certain conditions. Under Bush's new ruling only the 64 stem cell lines that were already in place before August 9 were to be funded. He said that the government would not fund further destruction of embryos to create more lines. Also stem cells could not be obtained from embryos created for that purpose or from the left over embryos from in-vitro fertilization. However, private sectors would be allowed to continue producing new lines through the destruction of embryos.

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

“Now science has presented us with a hope called stem cell research, which may provide our scientists with many answers that have for so long been beyond our grasp.” (Nancy Reagan). Most cells within our bodies perform one specialized task. Contrary to these single job cells are stem cells. These cells are unspecialized and can morph and perform any task that is needed within the body. However, the way that stem cells are harvested has caused a lot of controversy. The way that the stem cells are taken destroys the embryo. We should support the recent decision to allow embryonic stem-cell research in the United States and federally fund the work to use these stem cells to cure diseases. Better stem cell research would provide safer procedures and medical practices for everyone.

The use of private funding has uncovered the existent of more than sixty genetically diverse stem cell lines. The use of federal funds for research on these existing sixty stem cell lines, where the life and death decision has already been made would allow us to explore the promise and potential of stem cell research without crossing a fundamental moral line by providing taxpayer funding that would sanction or encourage further destruction of human embryos that have at least the potential for life. Based on preliminary work that has been mainly funded privately, scientists believe further research using stem cells offers great promise that could improve the lives of those who suffer from many terrible diseases -- from juvenile diabetes to Alzheimer's, from Parkinson's to spinal cord injuries. Adequate funding for embryonic stem cell research will allow scientist to discover more possibilities of what stem cells are capable of doing. These possibilities include drug testing and cell-based therapies that cover a wide range of applications; differentiating into desired cell-types, generating sufficient quantities of tissue, and survival of the cells and

One of the most controversial topics these days is Stem Cell Research. There seems to be a split opinion among societies about the research and whether it is socially and morally acceptable. As a society, we need to open our minds to the possibility of broadening our scientific horizons with stem cell research, and take the time to learn and understand whatever we can about it.

Abortion, gay marriage, and illegal immigration are all hot button topics currently being faced by Americans. As ardently as each side defends their stance on a controversial issue, an opposing side fights with equal diligence for the beliefs they feel should be valued by our nation. Perhaps nowhere is this battle more heated than in the fight over stem cell research. While supporters of this new field of science tout it’s potential to cure everything from blindness to paralysis, those against stem cell science liken the procedures used by scientists to murder. It is my intention to bring to light the positive benefits of stem cell research as well as counter the claims used by many Pro-life groups who believe the scientists driving this

The society has evolved over the decades. Medical advances, greater technologies, better understanding of the world around us, the sky is the limit! The progression of a society is astounding from where it was just twenty years ago. One is able to do things that the forefathers would have never dreamed! Science has discovered ways to travel to the moon and back, reach some of the deepest depths of the oceans and discover new species, and drive hybrid cars. The achievements of today’s society have reached a new high; however, with great achievement comes great questions of ethics.

Scientists and researchers believe that Human Embryonic Stem Cells hold potential cures for numerous diseases in today's society, including multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, diabetes, Lou Gehrig's disease, Hodgkin's disease, hundreds of immune system and genetic disorders, spinal cord injuries, heart disease and just about every type of cancer. In today's world there's over a million Americans who suffer from deadly diseases, not only adults but innocent children that deserve to live a healthy life. These deadly diseases can be cured or treated in a more effective way than they are treated now with the help of the human embryonic stem cells. According to the Poll on "American views on stem cell research in the wake of the death of Ronald Reagan" which was prepared for results of America, shows that a sum of 73% highly supports and somewhat support this controversial process (Results of America, 2004). Even though this topic has brought continuous political attacks and very limited funding, Human Embryonic Stem cell research has made considerable contribution to the battle against disabilities and incurable diseases. A great example of success by using human embryonic stem cells was made by Dr. Hans Keirstead in the Roman Laboratory at UC Irvine; he restored myelin insulation around damaged nerves, returning motion to partially paralyzed rats. (Journal of Neuroscience, 2005) .