Scientists Use Of Embryonic Stem Cells example essay topic

Genetic research is essential in the advancement of medical treatments. Without it, chances to find new and improved treatments in medicine are greatly limited. The potential use of recombinant DNA to change the function of cells may be the solution to various medical conditions. New scientific findings involving the use of stem cells have opened the door to even greater possibilities to finding cures to degenerative diseases. However, controversy surrounds current genetic research.

Public perceptions of the current research are mixed, differing with individual differences and beliefs. Continual criticism of the use of genetically modified cells has led to the creation of the 'cloning debate', disputing the creation and copying of cells for the sole purpose of harvesting healthy cells for medicinal use. In addition to this, the use of cells from human embryos may set in motion 'designer babies' with predetermined characteristics. The possible advantages of genetic research have done much to allay public fears but the even greater possibility of opening a 'Pandora's box' of irreversible implications may force genetic research to fade into obscurity.

In recent times, genetic engineering has been revolutionized by a technique known as gene splicing. Gene splicing is used by scientists to directly alter genetic material to form recombinant DNA. One or more genes of an organism are introduced to a second organism resulting in recombined DNA results (Encarta 1997-2003 [Online]). The introduction of new genes into an organism using recombinant DNA technology essentially alters the characteristics of the organism by changing it protein makeup. In humans, recombinant DNA cannot be transferred directly from the donor organism to the host organism.

Instead, the DNA must be cut and recombined with a matching fragment of DNA from an organism carrying the donor DNA to the host (Encarta 1997-2003 [Online]). This DNA can then be duplicated in large quantities as a protein in another organism. A related technique performed specifically with animal is cloning. In cloning, scientists remove the DNA containing nucleus from a female's egg and replace it with a nucleus from a different animal of the same species. The scientists then place the egg in the uterus of a third animal. The result, as first demonstrated by Dolly the sheep in 1997, is the birth of an animal that is nearly identical to the animal from which the nucleus was obtained (Encarta 1997-2003 [Online]).

Cloning is still in its early stages but may pave the way for improved farm animals and medical products. Figure 1. Genetic Engineering Process Genetic engineering enables scientists to produce clones of cells or organisms that contain the same genes. 1. Scientists use restriction enzymes to isolate a segment of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) that contains a gene of interest-for example, the gene regulating insulin production.

2. A plasmid extracted from a bacterium and treated with the same restriction enzyme can hybridize with this fragment's "sticky" ends of complementary DNA. 3. The hybrid plasmid is reincorporated into the bacterium, where it replicates as part of the cell's DNA. 4. A large number of identical daughter cells (clones) can be cultured and their gene products extracted for human use.

Source: "Genetic Engineering", web (c) 2003 Gene therapy is perhaps the most revolutionary and promising of recombinant DNA. During this process, a healthy gene can be directly inserted into a person with a malfunctioning gene but problems lie within methods of insertion into human cells. New scientific findings involving the use of stem cells hold enormous promise for treating disease. Embryonic stem cells are pluripotent, which means they can be grown into any type of cell. They are the great hope for curing degenerative diseases like Parkinson's disease, cystic fibrosis or repairing damaged organs like a heart. Researchers in the United States are reported to have produced a stable pluripotent stem line from primate cells (Walsh 2002 [Online]).

From this cell line they produced heart muscle, brain neurones, smooth muscle and a variety of other types of cells adding to scientific progression. However, the origin of some stem cells is the point of public uproar. Scientists' use of embryonic stem cells - usually obtained as left overs from IVF programs and donated for research - is controversial and subject to restrictions in most countries including Australia. In a claim that could profoundly affect the future of stem cell research, scientists at biotech giant Genzyme say that many supposedly different kinds of adult stem cells have more potential than initially thought. Because adult stem cells are present in everyone, they are easier to obtain than ten day old embryonic stem cells and are far less controversial.

In 2002, scientific journal 'New Scientist' revealed that Catherine Verfailie of the University of Minnesota had discovered 'multi potent adult progenitor cells' apparently capable of giving rise to all tissues in the body just like embryonic stem cells (New Scientist 2001 [Online]). However, until more research is conducted on adult stem cells, their potential for the greater good will be overshadowed by doubts on the morality of using embryonic stem cells. Controversy surrounds the use and cloning of embryonic stem cells. The public fear that these stem cells have the potential to develop into embryos has brought about the label of 'designer babies's pacifically for the use of harvesting healthy cells. This 'cloning' of human embryos may, in the future, lead to the rise of human clones and the disappearance of 'natural' individuality.

And so, with the progression of cloning and genetic engineering, people will be inclined to give their children skills and traits that align with their own temperaments and lifestyles (Stock 2003 [Online]). Therefore, when confronted with 'designer babies' it is most likely that people begin to talk about 'playing god', connect the issue to personal beliefs or decide scientists should be given permission to proceed in the hope of finding some remedy for an illness (Kraft & McKibben 2001 [Online]). However, it is the entirely new questions raised by genetic research about human beings that force people to face issues never raised before. Most of all, it will force people to ask if human life will have any meaning once genetic alterations become commonplace. By facing this great challenge- the possible erosion of human meaning - human choices become imperative in the future direction of genetic engineering. Public perceptions of genetic research are important in the acceptance of advancing technology.

In today's society, science is no longer associated with the idea of progress rather it generates fear (Giordano 2001 [Online]). Numerous scientific practices such as genetic manipulations have been vigorously rejected by certain members of the population due to individual differences. The problem of one or many different audiences remains one of the most relevant and difficult challenges faced. For instance, in the Christian ethical framework, abortion is not condoned therefore the use of embryonic stem cells with the potential to become living people is not accepted as they would not be treated in such a way - only for spare parts. In order to limit the amount of conflicting views, it is important for the scientific community and society to reach a mutual understanding. By taking into account the complex mixture of attitudes, approaches, ideas and interests, a broader and more accepting audience may be reached.

In order for this to take place; it is important for the scientific community to develop some form of trust with the public in order to put any lingering fears to rest. Currently, notions of mad scientists creating zombie-like clones like the iconic pop culture figure Frankenstein are at the fore. Such fantastic notions may not seem too outrageous with the rapid development of scientific technology but as long as communication barriers exist within the global population, the acceptance of genetic research may still have a long way to travel. The advantages offered by genetic research may do much to convey its importance to scientific advancements.

Recently, scientists have employed recombinant DNA techniques to produce medically useful proteins for in humans. Tissue plasminogen activator (tPA), an enzyme used to dissolve blood clots in people who have suffered heart attacks and erythropetin, a hormone used to stimulate the production of red blood cells in people with severe anaemia are two such engineered proteins (Encarta 1997-2003 [Online]). Another important genetically engineered drug is interferon, used to fight viral disease. Recombinant DNA technology is also used in the production of vaccines against diseases such as hepatitis and influenza. Genetically engineered vaccines are considering safer than using the disease-causing virus itself and it equally effective. However, it is gene therapy that holds the most promise.

The use of gene therapy has been approved in more than four hundred clinical trials for diseases and although there are yet to be any cures, the possibility of finding one may be just enough incentive to continue on. The revolutionary progression of genetic research and engineering greatly affects new medical findings. However, public backlash over methods employed to discover more about recombinant DNA and stem cells may cause genetic research to be restricted to less controversial and less startling results. While possible advantages, such as the creation of vaccines, proteins and healthy cells may not be enough to quell the fear of most anti-genetics demonstrators, it may be enough to save lives.

The most controversial issue, human cloning, is a milestone yet to be reached and the reason to keep trying has yet to meet public acceptance overall. The notion of creating 'designer babies' for selfish purposes causes the most public debate as personal beliefs take over. Until such threats, can be safeguarded against to appease public perceptions, genetic research will continue to be challenged as it resumes it revolutionary medical practices. The future now holds only the vaguest of notions as to what direction genetic research will take.

One can only hope that the implications can be effectively handled for the sake of scientific advancements.