NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
The Stem Cell Dilemma Every day, nearly 3, 000 people die while waiting for an organ transplant (D'Agnese). Moreover, 66, 000 people are still on an organ donor list in the United States, few of which will ever see their name come up on that list ("Improving"). Many people believe nothing can be done about this sad fact. However, this is not the case.
Studies on stem-cell research point toward a solution to this deadly problem. With efficient use of stem cells, many diseases and medical problems could be solved. Stem-cells are very young, specialized cells. Usually coming from a human embryo, they have the ability to develop into more specialized groups of cells or tissues ("Stem Cells: A Primer"). As of 2001, scientists could develop stem-cells into more than 110 different types of tissues, such as blood, brain or heart tissue (Robinson).
If these cells could be so useful in the medical field, why are they not being used now? First of all, the research on stem-cells is still ongoing, though if given funding this research may have already been accomplished. According to Gary Stix, a writer for Scientific American, on November 5 th, 2001, a company called Advanced Cell Technology (ACT) was the first to actually clone embryonic cells. This is not cloning in the most common sense, though. Stem-cells have previously been obtained from tissues of early stage embryos. With this experiment, scientists tried to use a new technique in making stem-cells so that real embryos need not be used.
The scientists injected cells into eggs which had their nuclei removed, rather than making an actual copy of the cell. These cells developed, though the furthest development was from the one cell to eight cells, which is not enough to provide stem-cells (Lauritzen). This may not seem like much, but it is seen as a small step on the path to greater and more efficient use of these cells. So, one factor in the question of why do we not use stem-cells is that certain people do not approve of the use of embryonic tissue in research. There are many reasons, however, in which it could be seen as feasible to use embryonic stem-cells in the sake of medicine. For example people with heart disease or kidney failure could be cured with a relatively cheap operation.
Today organ transplants are quite expensive and sometimes a matching donor can not even be found if a patient had the money to pay for it. However if stem-cells could be used, organs would be easily accessible, and many of those who would not have been able to get a transplant would have new hope. Not only would stem-cells help with organ transplants, but they have also been shown to treat other diseases such as multiple sclerosis (Lee). Despite these facts, some may still think it is morally wrong to use stem-cells. There are many reasons that help prove the fact that the use of stem-cells does not equal the destruction of a life. Supporters of stem-cell research believe that embryos composed of only a few cells that are being stored in a lab are not alive, because they are frozen.
They may have once had the potential to live, and though this potential was lost, it was not lost because of stem-cell research. Many of the cells that are being used come from ended pregnancies when a life would not develop anyway. If an embryo were to go unused, why not use it instead to save another life? There are actually over 110, 000 embryos being stored in the United States alone, with no life in sight for them (Robinson).
These embryos are not alive, and should be used instead of discarded. To make this debate even easier, stem cells may in the near future come from, for example, the ACT developed "embryos." With the ACT's embryos, the scientists started with human eggs, though they were not fertilized with sperm; these eggs were then coaxed into fertilization. The eggs were kept in a culture and seemed to develop like normal embryos, though they could probably never be able to develop fully into a child (Lauritzen). Writer Paul Lauritzen asks about the pro-life statements that say an embryo is a "person from conception", "What sense does this make when we are dealing with an organism that can only be loosely defined as an embryo and which was not conceived at all?" It can be seen in both of these cases that stem-cell research should be not only allowed, but also encouraged.
It could mean hundreds of thousands of saved lives every year. Not only do people disagree about whether embryonic cells should be used in medicine, they ask if the process that is being undergone is really cloning. Is it cloning when a scientist determines the fate of a cell? It may be seen as so to some, because scientists are turning a cell into something he or she has directed it to. Others do not see it as cloning, because what is seen in the end is not an identical copy of what was used in the beginning. There is a definite distinction between the two types of cloning, and many believe that only reproductive cloning, not medical cloning, is wrong.
This weighty issue has even made its way to the forefront of medical debate in the government. President Bush's Council on Bioethics met in January 2002 to discuss the issue of cloning stem-cells. The council made a unanimous decision that cloning a human being has the potential to be quite dangerous and should be outlawed by Congress (Safire). But what about the "cloning" of stem-cells?
Should that be outlawed as well? Actually, at the same time as the President's Council met, a group of leading scientists met to discuss similar issues dealing with stem-cells. The scientists agree that the cloning of humans should be out of the question, but they saw no risk in cloning cells in a lab for medical purposes (Safire). The only argument with this is that of using adult cells rather than embryonic cells, since the ACT's method is not widely used yet.
All humans have stem cells. For example, there are stem cells in our bone marrow that continue to produce blood throughout one's life ("Stem Cells: A Primer"). Embryos also have stem-cells, which have proven to be much more useful. An embryonic stem cell has the potential to develop into almost any organ or tissue in a human being. These stem cells are the basis of life in an embryo, because they have not been directed toward a certain function yet and therefore have an almost unlimited potential ("Stem Cells: A Primer"). So, with all of this information, what has the President said about this issue?
He could possibly allow a certain cloning of stem cells or he could ban it all together. President Bush addressed the Nation in the fall of 2001 on the issue of stem cell research. According to White House columnist Eric Draper, this topic is being heavily debated in Bush's administration, because they must decide whether to federally fund stem cell research or not. Scientists believe that progress will come much more rapidly with the help of federal funds. The President does acknowledge that there is much promise in this research, but he said that he is still debating himself on the definition of a human life. Bush said that he holds strong in his decision to ban reproductive cloning, but he is also a strong supporter of research in science and technology.
With this, Bush decided that he would fund research on stem-cells, but only with stem-cell lines that already exist, such as the ones that are stored in labs. He believes that this will lessen the controversy about stem cells because it could help appease both sides of the subject (Draper). This may seem like a good solution, but under further investigation Discover columnist Joseph D'Agnese reported that fewer than 30 stem-cell lines are now available. Because of this, scientist's research and application of such would be very limited. It seems that the President's solution may not be the best solution for this problem. It is understood that some hold strong in their decision against stem-cell research, but why should the decision of a certain group of people determine the fates of so many more?
Allen Robins, a chief scientific officer of a biotechnology firm, said, "Those who object to embryonic stem-cell research are entitled to their point of view... If you don't agree with science, you don't have to use it. We aren't going to force anyone to have a stem-cell transplant. " (D'Agnese). A good solution to this problem may be allowing stem-cells to be used, with promise to let Americans choose themselves whether to use stem-cell produced items or not. Doctors may soon face the decision of using tissues developed by stem cells in their practices, and patients may have to choose to accept them as part of their treatment. If a patient were to be in need of a cure that was developed using stem-cells, he or she would have a choice in using it.
Stem cells may be a new "miracle" in the eyes of medicine, assuming it is not banned by legislation first. People must see that it is moral to use stem cells, and that it will save the lives of millions of people. Stem cell research may be one of the biggest debates in medical advancement in years. This research definitely holds great potential, but in order to prove that this is so, the Nation must first accept the idea of stem-cell research. Stem cells could save millions of lives in the next few years, if it proves to be the right thing to do.
Bibliography D'Agnese, Joseph. "The Debate Over Stem Cells Gets Hot." Discover 23 (Jan. 2002): 1. Draper, Eric. "Remarks by the President on Stem Cell Research. " Aug. 9 2001. Feb. 10 2002. "Improving the Nation's Organ Transplantation System. " US Department of Health and Human Services. 18 Oct. 1999. 16 Feb. 2002. Lauritzen, Paul. "Broadening the Debate on Cloning and Stem Cell Research. " America 186 (4 Feb. 2002): 22 Academic Search Elite. Ebscohost.
University of Louisville Ekstrom Library. 6 Feb. 2002. Lee, Jacqueline. "Embryonic Stem Cells: The End Doesn't Justify the Means. " Claretian Publications Jan. 2002. Proquest. University of Louisville Ekstrom Library. 6 Feb. 2002. Robinson, B.
A. "What are Stem Cells?" 29 Aug. 2001. Feb 16 2002. Safire, William. "The Crimson Birthmark. " New York Times 21 Jan. 2002. Proquest. University of Louisville Ekstrom Library. 6 Feb. 2002. "Stem Cells: A Primer" National Institutes of Health. May 2000.
Feb. 16 2002. Stix, Gary. "What Clones?" Scientific American 286 (Feb. 2002): 18. Academic Search Elite. Ebscohost. University of Louisville Ekstrom Library. 6 Feb. 2002.
Free research essays on topics related to: stem cell lines, stem cell research, reproductive cloning, academic search elite, embryonic stem cells
Research essay sample on Embryonic Stem Cells Stem Cell Research
