Ihavetodothis.weebly.com



Stem cell research has a very controversial standing in modern American culture. Although it is a great area of scientific research, the public is rather divided on whether or not researchers should conduct exploration in this unknown field. The benefits of stem cells far outweigh the negative effects on society. Most of the controversy on research is directly linked to abortion and the pro-choice/pro- life division. Adult stem cell research is widely accepted as an important area of study, whereas embryonic cell research is very “controversial”. The reason embryonic research is debatable is that separation of stem cells from the embryo results in the destruction of the embryo (Explore). Many people consider the destruction of an embryo as the destruction of a human life. But what is a human? Is it a cluster of cells? After all, when we crack an egg open, we do not think or believe that we have killed a chicken. When we use salmon eggs as bait, we do not believe we killed a fish in order to catch a fish. The use of a 5 day old embryo for research is not murder. It is not the same as killing a child. Consider this scenario:In the Batman movies, the villain, Penguin hatched a scenario to kidnap all the first born children of Gotham city. Penguin planned to kidnap the children and drown them in the river as a form of revenge for his own parents abandoning him. Yet if Penguin had instead hatched a plan to destroy a petri dish, do we consider that just as heinous? If a petri dish is placed in a freezer, is it the equivalent of freezing a toddler? Do we consider the destruction of a five day old embryo the equivalent of the murder of a 4 year old child? Of course not. A 4 year old can think, laugh, love, feel. A cluster of 100-150 cells cannot do any of those things. Consider cancer. Cancer is malignant growth or tumor caused by uncontrolled cell division (NCBI). When destroying cancerous tumors, have we murdered? People against stem cell research would argue that a cancerous tumor is not the same as a child, and they are correct. A cancerous tumor, however, is exactly the same as a 5-7 day old embryo; they are both made up of a cluster of cells. In fact, a tumor is made up of far more cells than would exist in an early embryo. These arguments seem to be more centered towards abortion supported embryonic research. Embryonic research, however, is not possible due to abortion, but due to In Vitro Fertilization. When going through in vitro fertilization, many cells are joined together and many zygotes are created. Most of these are either frozen in a lab or disposed of. This is where most embryos are derived from for stem cell research (Kinsley). Given that these cells were to be disposed of, does it not make more logical sense to use them for the benefit of humanity? To throw away cells that could be used for research is the equivalent of creating an alternative to fossil fuels and disposing of them before it could be harnessed. The supply is there, all that we need is the research. There is no problem when using embryos from fertility clinics because they are being used by approval. Before scientists can use disposed embryos, they must have approval from the donor and the embryo must have been created for fertility purposes. They are not creating embryos only to destroy them, they are not using embryos from late term abortions, rather they are harnessing the already disposed cells and using them for the benefit of humanity (Morton).Another argument is that embryonic research destroys potential life. But given what we have already discussed, this seems unlikely. Stem cells that are used for research are mostly taken from fertility clinics. In the fertility clinic a life was created, not destroyed. To make a viable zygote, scientists must go through a wide array of cell pairing before finding the best match. For some reason, not all of these pairings are successful in creating a viable specimen. Therefore, given what we know, the same question is brought up, is it not a better idea to use these lab samples that are to be discarded for the benefit of humanity, or is it a better idea to just simply discard them?The benefits of stem cells far outweigh any negative consequences. Stem cells have the ability to turn into any other specialized cell within the body. This means that a stem cell can later be used in the circulatory system, the central nervous system or any other are susceptible to disease in the body.This is where the benefits lie. Stem cells potential lies with the ability to develop into virtually anything. All of the ailments, diseases and disorders that are caused due to deficiencies within the body have the potential of all being cured. Here is one example:In 2007, doctors from a hospital in Berlin implanted stem cells into the bone marrow of a man who had leukemia and was HIV positive. Standard leukemia treatment requires the destruction of the patient’s blood cells via chemotherapy. The doctor treating the patient decided to kill two birds with one stone and sought a donor with an HIV resistant gene in his cells. The stem cells were later used to repopulate the patient’s bone marrow. Fast forward 3 years later, that man is no longer HIV positive (DeNoon). Finally, a plausible cure for HIV has been found. Unfortunately, few people can go through this grueling procedure. It is life-threatening and very expensive. Yet, it is a step in the right direction.So how do we go about making a change and convincing congress to approve federal funding of stem cell research?That is a very good question, and one that needs to be addressed. Unfortunately, it is not possible to convince an irrational person with rational arguments. Some people may never change position unless they are directly reaping the benefits. With that being said, in order to achieve the goal of federal funding for stem cell research, education must be used as a means by which the public is informed.First and foremost, the public must be informed that most stem cells harvested for research are NOT taken from aborted fetuses. Abortion is not the issue. Abortion is not the sole or primary means by which stem cells are harvested. As mentioned above, most stem cells come from the discards of In Vitro Fertilization (Kinsley). If people are taught this basic fact in high school or college biology courses, it will become a non-issue. Another fact that needs to be taught to the public is that the embryos that are received through IVF are actually due to the creation of families. Families are not destroyed through IVF, they are created. Couples who are infertile seek pregnancy aid through IVF, after a zygote is successfully implanted, the excess or extra cells taken and created are discarded. This is where stem cell researchers step in, they use the cells embryos that would be discarded and use them to benefit humanity. They do not destroy life. They aid in CREATING life and simply take the excess, unviable products for research. Not only is it only excess, but it is also freely donated to researchers. These simple facts should be advertised in billboards, radio and TV ads, as well as papers such as this in community writing projects. I simply propose that school curriculum should be changed slightly. When teachers of all grades begin instruction on stem cells, they should simply mention how scientists come by stem cells to research. It places no extra burden on teachers to state that researchers receive 4 to 7 day old embryos from IVF donors for research. The only way to change public perception on this very important topic is education. Society must take on the responsibility to educate those that are opposed to such crucial research that can benefit us all. Open, civilized dialogue is necessary. Unfortunately, stem cell research remains controversial because it is so dominated by the Pro Life/ Pro Choice debate. The topic of research must remain separated from the abortion issue. They are different topics and should not be combined. Given the nature of the facts surrounding the harvesting and research of stem cells, we are only hurting ourselves by denying our tax dollars to fund potentially lifesaving research. We are on the brink of a solving some of the most perplexing medical complications of our entire existence. It is up to our generation to pave the way and insure that future generations do not have to experience the loss of loved ones to cancer, or brain tumors, or loss of mobility due to spinal cord injuries. We have the chance to make a difference and through a thorough education we can make sure that humanity will always prevail and overcome.Works CitedExplore Stem Cells. “Stem Cell Controversy”. Explore.co.uk. nd. Web. Feb. 22, 2011.DeNoon, Daniel J. “A Cure for HIV?”. Web M.D, nd. Web. Feb. 22, 2011. Kinsley, Michael. “The False Controversy of Stem Cells”. Time Magazine. March 23, 2004. Web. February 22, 2011. Morton, Michael. “UMass stem-cell bank now ready to supply researchers”. Metro West Daily News. February 21, 2011. Web. February 22, 2011.National Center for Biotechnology Information. “Cancer”. U.S. National Library of Medicine. August 14, 2010. Web. February 22, 2011. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download