Stem Cell Research example essay topic

Did you know that turtles can breathe throught their anus? Stem Cell Research I first got interested in stem cell research when I heard all the potential cures these cells had for all kinds of diseases. What especially caught my eye was the cure for diabetes. I know several people that suffer from this disease and I would support anything that eliminated them having to inject themselves with insulin everyday just to survive. These stem cells also have the power to cure other diseases such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. There have been many ethical and moral questions surrounding this issue and I wanted to explore the topic more and why some people are so against this research.

First, I read an article in Newsweek titled "Cellular Divide" and it was this article that helped me understand a little bit more about the process of obtaining stem cells. I want to talk about some of what I learned from this article on stem cells are and why they are so important. (The following information was gathered from Newsweek article, "Cellular Divide". ) Stem cells are cells that have the potential to become many different kinds of cells.

In the very early embryo, these cells are called "totipotent" - that is, they have the ability to become any of the bodies 220 cell types. In adult stem cells, the cells are "pluripotent" - which means they have the capacity to become a variety of cells but not all. Scientists believe they will lead to cures for diseases once thought untreatable. The process to obtain and use such stem cells is as follows: 1. The embryo -An egg is fertilized or cloned to form an embryo. The embryo begins to divide.

2.1 to 5 days -The embryo divides again and again and takes shape as a sphere called a blastocyst. (I'll talk more about these later.) 3.5 to 7 days -By this time the embryonic stem cells and are capable of developing into any tissue in the body. 4. Stem Line -The cells are removed and grown in a petri dish.

As they divide, they create a line of stem cells. 5. Tissue Production -Using various recipes of nutrients and other factors, scientist hope to turn stem cells into any of the body's 220 tissues such as: Pancreatic islet cells - could provide a cure for diabetes Nerve Cells - could be used to treat Alzheimer's and Parkinson's and spinal cord injuries Muscle cells - could repair or replace a damaged heart After reading that article, I guess you could say this controversy begins at the source. That the human embryos are destroyed in the process of retrieving the stem cells, and I can see how this could upset a lot of people.

But scientists can obtain these embryos in four ways. Each, however has its own ethical challenges. The least morally problematic I think is using embryos left over from fertility clinics. However, if you are a passionate right to life activist, you see these cells as an incipient to life, one deserving all the rights and respect of any other human being. After taking biology in high school and taking many courses in human development, my view towards this is as follows. First off, fertilization is a process that takes about 24 hours to complete and therefore there is not a specific moment one can point to in which that potential embryo becomes an actual embryo.

As a side note, should a human be cloned, there would be no fertilization at all because the nucleus of one cell is placed into another cell that has its nucleus removed and is stimulated to begin cell division. The life of that individual would not begin at fertilization. Which I know, is confusing. Second, the whole development of an embryo into a fetus and eventually into a child is a process, not a series of sharply defined steps. I think this is important because it is honestly, very difficult to tell precisely where a fetus is in the process of development. One knows where the fetus is after the stage has already begun.

It is not easy to make precise developmental statements and then moral judgments made in relation to them. More specifically, up until about a week or two into the pregnancy, the fertilized egg has the capacity to divide and become identical twins. In some cases it has been observed that such divided eggs blend back together into one. According to Kenneth Woodward and his article, "A Question of Life or Death", .".. if the egg is fertilized in vitro, one cell can be removed (to have its genetic structure analyzed) and the developmental process is not harmed". This I did not know before.

That in fact, all the cells of the blastocyst can be separated and each has the capacity to become a whole human being. I feel this point is clearly important biologically because these cells can become either a whole organism or be coaxed into becoming any specialized cell in the body. With this new information, I feel that because the cells of the blastocyst can be divided so that each part can become a whole, the blastocyst lacks true individuality in how I look at it - which would be the capacity not to be able to be divided. For example, if you were to divide yourself, you would wind up with two halves. If one divides the cells of the blastocyst, one obtains several cells all capable of becoming separate individuals. So I asked myself, if an organism is not first an individual, how is it considered to be a person?

I came to the conclusion that I believe being an individual organism is a first necessary, though certainly not sufficient, stage of being a person. On the basis of the argument that the blastocyst is not yet an individual, some would argue, according to Ellen Licking of "The Stem Cell Debate" article in "Business Week" .".. that while a blastocyst is a living organism, possessing the human genetic code, such an organism is indeed valuable, but its value is not yet accorded to a person". Therefore I would conclude that killing the human blastocyst is not murder because there is as yet no personal subject to experience that wrong. Such a killing is a disvalue, to be sure, but a disvalue that might be offset by other positive values, such as health.

(Which was my main reason for starting this research in the first place.) The conclusion that I would draw then, is that at least a case can be made for the use of human embryos in stem cell research. The second way to get embryos is from aborted fetuses. Now, I figure since the fetus is already aborted, then why not use it for science. Just like when you die you can sign away your body for scientific research well the same sort of thing here. If the mother should chose, I think she should be able to donate her aborted child to scientific research. Though this approach crosses severe moral and ethical problems with many people.

Why when they are already dead, I do not know. I think it's mainly psychological for people. They don't really think of it as a dead person, they restrict their thinking to "it's a baby". I would branch out more on the abortion subject but then I'd lose focus of my paper. The third way to obtain embryos is by cloning. Advanced Cell Technology has announced that it is "trying to create cloned human embryos as a source of embryos".

Now however, there is the problem of the people who think the scientists that use cloning in their technology are trying to "play God". What does that mean really. Try to think in non religious terms. Are they saying that only a God can create life and take it away?

As far as I know it's humans that create life and humans, diseases, and natural causes that take it away. This is not to say that I don't believe in God, but really, they " re not talking about cloning an entire human being here. What they " re talking about is cloning a few cells to create cures for horrible diseases. I read about the final way in obtaining embryos in National Reviews, "The Stem - Cell Slide". This final way, is a way in which one would call "made to order". What this means is that sperm and egg are combined for the purpose of creating an embryo and then extracting it's cells.

I think, however, that this is an unnecessary way to get stem cells just because of the fact that there are already so many embryos left over from in vitro that there's no need to make any more activist pissed off by fertilizing an egg just to destroy it. What motivates many of the most vocal advocates of embryonic stem cell research, including those who are staunchly pro-life, is that most of the embryos used in research would otherwise be discarded. What else should we do with approximately 100,000 embryos currently in fertility clinic freezers? Research opponents want them put up for adoption. According to the Economist and their article, "Cutting the Blob of Ethical Politics" that. ".. recently, three children who were adopted as frozen embryos appeared before Congress. The conservative family research council says every frozen embryo deserves 'an opportunity to be born'".

Similarly in my research I've come across many statements that say "these embryos have the potential for life, and they should be treated with the same rights as humans". Though this is true, that these embryos have the potential for life, I do not think that they should have, by any means, the same rights as humans. (reasons above: see 1-3 and 5 of the bibliography) Every female has, or at least starts off with two ovaries. In these ovaries are billions of eggs, each always having the "potential" for life. Yet, each month, they get flushed down the toilet. The reason this happens is because the egg doesn't get what it needs to survive. The same thing with an embryo.

If it doesn't have a womb to reside in, it will die. Wouldn't it be silly if women all across the world had to take advantage of every "potential" life they could create? I take that back, it wouldn't be silly, it would be disastrous. The earths resources would be depleted and we would slowly kill ourselves off one by one. So, instead of flushing unused embryos, down the toilet why not use them for the greater good? With research done with these stem cells we could save thousands of "already existing" lives.

With all that I have learned from my research, I believe stem cell research is a positive study that could help millions of people around the world. I hope they continue research for the main purpose of serving the greater good.

Bibliography

Cloud, John; Brane gan, Jay; Calabrese, Massimo; Dickerson, John F. ; Thompson, Dick. "Bush's No-Win Choice" TIME July 23, 2001, Vol.
158 Issue 3, page 22 Carey, John; Licking, Ellen. "The Stem Cell Debate Just Got Thornier". Business Week. February 11, 2002.
Issue 3769, page 58 Novak, Michael. "The Stem-Cell Slide". National Review. September 3, 2001.
Vol. 53 Issue 17, page 17 Woodward, Kenneth L. "A Question of Life or Death". Newsweek. July 9, 2001.
Vol. 138 Issue 2, page 31 "The Cutting Blob of Ethical Politics". Economist. July 7, 2001.
Vol. 360 Issue 8229, page 31 Begley, Sharon; Mur r, Andrew; Check, Erika; Rogers, Adam. "Cellular Divide". Newsweek. July 9, 2001.