Billions of dollars have been used for the research of stem cells. Recently there has been great debate about the funding of this research. Former President Bush chose to allow the federal funding of research of privately produced human embryonic stem cells only. On March 9, 2009, President Obama overturned Bush's ruling, allowing US Federal funding to go to embryonic stem cell research, but they must follow the NIH guidelines.
Stem cells are advancements in medicine. Stem cells are defined by their ability to grow into almost any type of cell. For example, cells that were lost in the treatment of cancer through chemotherapy or radiation can be replaced by stem cells. Stem cells can be found in three main places. Adult cells come from bone marrow or the peripheral system. Adult cells are plentiful and are exact DNA matches because they come from the patient’s body. They are not rejected by the patient’s immune system. Stem cells can also be found in the umbilical cord. It is the second rich source for stem cells. If the family has planned ahead, umbilical cord cells can also be a perfect match. Cord cells are taken after pregnancy and stored in cryogenic fell banks and saved for the child. They may be used for other family members, but the farther the relationship, the harder to have good match. The last source is from the embryo. These cells are called embryonic cells.
The controversy comes in with the embryonic stem cells. In order to receive these cells, the embryo must be destroyed. People oppose this method because they value life from the moment of conception. Also, based on medical research embryonic stem cells are not the best options. About 20 percent of mice that were treated with embryonic cells for Parkinson’s disease have died from brain tumors. Those against embryonic stem cells research think that money should be put towards researching Adult and Umbilical cells.
Adult stem cells don’t have the same features as those from the embryo. Human embryonic cells have a potential for universal application. Researchers argue that the embryo does not have any human features. The embryos are not eggs fertilized in the woman’s body, but come from eggs that have been fertilized through in-vitro. They fertilize 8 to 9 eggs at a time to maximize the chances of implantation they stress that new life will not be made in order to help with their research or experiments. There are many fertilized human cells being banked but are not available for research. Researchers try to advocate for using the embryonic cells that will be destroyed by the fertility clinics. These could be used for research. Researchers rely on federal funding. The research can potentially help with treating diseases like Parkinson’s or Alzheimer’s.
So, should the government fund the research for stem cells? Does the life of an embryo outweigh a person dying with cancer or Parkinson’s? Based on how a person values life and the advancement of medicine, this answer could range tremendously.
By: Shanika Simmons
Response by BriElla Nelson
Stem cell research has been proven to be very beneficial in the health care industry. It has helped find a common treatment for leukemia, lymphoma and other inherited blood disorders, bone marrow transplants. Scientist claim that the research has also brought them closer to finding treatments for type 1 diabetes and advanced kidney cancer. Stem cell research can potentially help treat a range of medical problems such as:
• Parkinson’s Disease
• Alzheimer’s Disease
• Birth Defects
• Spinal Cord Injuries
• Replace or Repair Damaged Organs
• Reduced Risk of Transplantation (You could possibly get a copy of your own heart in a heart-transplantation in the future)
The topic of stem cell research is a lot like abortions and just as controversial. People feel that embryos are still human lives and should not be destroyed for research. Just as I feel the government should not be involved in the decisions of mothers to carry their births full term, I believe the government should not be involved in funding research that uses embryo stem cell research. Since the underlying reason why many are against this type of stem cell research is religious, the government should steer clear of taking a side on the matter, due to the supposed “separation of church and state.”
Thus said, to avoid conflict and controversy, the government should only fund projects that use alternate methods such as bone marrow cells or adult cells (not embryo cells); should it chooses to become involved in stem cell research at all. Outside organizations that are for stem cell research should fund the research that uses embryo cells.
Because of the good it can cause and the lives that can be saved I say keep the research coming, but don’t use my tax dollars for it!
4 comments:
You structured your argument really well. You provided a lot of background information. Furthermore, your conclusion captured the attention of the reader, and causes the reader to really think of your argument and to help them develop their own opinion about the situation.
By: Raavin R Evans
This argument was very well written. The author informed the reader of each type of stem cell and it benefits. The information was very factual and wasn't too dense to where the reader could not understand it. I also like how she didn't truly pick a side on the argument but left the decision to the reader based on the information she gave.
I would have to say while I am a religious person and value each life that is made I also have a brother who has been battling cancer for the past few years. To think that there is research that could be done to help alleviate him of the stresses of this disease that the government may be hesitant to allow upsets me. However, I have not come to a conclusion on whether or not the government should fund this research or whether or not it should be left to the private sector.
I liked how you presented both sides of the controversy, however I do not see an argument. You could have used your research and information to supoprt one side over the other. Based on the amount of knowledge you have, you could create a very sound and convincing argument.
I like the picture that you put up in order to represent the contreversy of Stem Cell Research. It was a great topic, but you failed to take a stance on what side you were for. It seemed like more of a speech of the status quo, there was no arguments for or against from you specifically. It could have been stronger, but Im glad you were brave enough to bring up a controversial issue
-Nia Newton
Post a Comment