argumentative essay stem cell research

Utility Menu

GA4 tracking code

Examining the ethics of embryonic stem cell research

Following the recent passage by both houses of Congress of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007, which would permit federal funding of research using donated surplus embryonic stem cells from fertility clinics, the president has once again threatened a veto.

Because neither the House nor the Senate had sufficient votes to override a presidential veto, it appears unlikely this new bill will be enacted into law, further stalling the pace of this research. “This bill crosses a moral line that I and others find troubling,” stated Bush, following the Senate’s vote.

SCL : What are th e main arguments for and against embryonic stem cell research? MS : Proponents argue that embryonic stem cell research holds great promise for understanding and curing diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, spinal cord injury, and other debilitating conditions. Opponents argue that the research is unethical, because deriving the stem cells destroys the blastocyst, an unimplanted human embryo at the sixth to eighth day of development. As Bush declared when he vetoed last year’s stem cell bill, the federal government should not support “the taking of innocent human life.”

It is surprising that, despite the extensive public debate—in Congress, during the 2004 and 2006 election campaigns, and on the Sunday morning talk shows—relatively little attention has been paid to the moral issue at the heart of the controversy: Are the opponents of stem cell research correct in their claim that the unimplanted human embryo is already a human being, morally equivalent to a person?

“It is important to be clear about the embryo from which stem cells are extracted. It is not implanted and growing in a woman’s uterus. It is not a fetus. It has no recognizable human features or form. It is, rather, a blastocyst, a cluster of 180 to 200 cells, growing in a petri dish, barely visible to the naked eye.”

SCL : What are the contradictions in Bush’s stance? MS : Before we address that, it is important to be clear about the embryo from which stem cells are extracted. It is not implanted and growing in a woman’s uterus. It is not a fetus. It has no recognizable human features or form.

It is, rather, a blastocyst, a cluster of 180 to 200 cells, growing in a petri dish, barely visible to the naked eye. Such blastocysts are either cloned in the lab or created in fertility clinics. The bill recently passed by Congress would fund stem cell research only on excess blastocysts left over from infertility treatments.

The blastocyst represents such an early stage of embryonic development that the cells it contains have not yet differentiated, or taken on the properties of particular organs or tissues—kidneys, muscles, spinal cord, and so on. This is why the stem cells that are extracted from the blastocyst hold the promise of developing, with proper coaxing in the lab, into any kind of cell the researcher wants to study or repair.

The moral and political controversy arises from the fact that extracting the stem cells destroys the blastocyst. It is important to grasp the full force of the claim that the embryo is morally equivalent to a person, a fully developed human being.

For those who hold this view, extracting stem cells from a blastocyst is as morally abhorrent as harvesting organs from a baby to save other people’s lives. This is the position of Senator Sam Brownback, Republican of Kansas, a leading advocate of the right-to-life position. In Brownback’s view, “a human embryo . . . is a human being just like you and me; and it deserves the same respect that our laws give to us all.

If Brownback is right, then embryonic stem cell research is immoral because it amounts to killing a person to treat other people’s diseases.

SCL : What is the basis for the belief that personhood begins at conception? MS : Some base this belief on the religious conviction that the soul enters the body at the moment of conception. Others defend it without recourse to religion, by the following line of reasoning: Human beings are not things. Their lives must not be sacrificed against their will, even for the sake of good ends, like saving other people’s lives. The reason human beings must not be treated as things is that they are inviolable. At what point do humans acquire this inviolability? The answer cannot depend on the age or developmental stage of a particular human life. Infants are inviolable, and few people would countenance harvesting organs for transplantation even from a fetus.

Every human being—each one of us—began life as an embryo. Unless we can point to a definitive moment in the passage from conception to birth that marks the emergence of the human person, we must regard embryos as possessing the same inviolability as fully developed human beings.

SCL : By this line of reasoning, human embryos are inviolable and should not be used for research, even if that research might save many lives. MS : Yes, but this argument can be challenged on a number of grounds. First, it is undeniable that a human embryo is “human life” in the biological sense that it is living rather than dead, and human rather than, say, bovine.

But this biological fact does not establish that the blastocyst is a human being, or a person. Any living human cell (a skin cell, for example) is “human life” in the sense of being human rather than bovine and living rather than dead. But no one would consider a skin cell a person, or deem it inviolable. Showing that a blastocyst is a human being, or a person, requires further argument.

Some try to base such an argument on the fact that human beings develop from embryo to fetus to child. Every person was once an embryo, the argument goes, and there is no clear, non-arbitrary line between conception and adulthood that can tell us when personhood begins. Given the lack of such a line, we should regard the blastocyst as a person, as morally equivalent to a fully developed human being.

SCL : What is the flaw in this argument? MS : Consider an analogy: although every oak tree was once an acorn, it does not follow that acorns are oak trees, or that I should treat the loss of an acorn eaten by a squirrel in my front yard as the same kind of loss as the death of an oak tree felled by a storm. Despite their developmental continuity, acorns and oak trees differ. So do human embryos and human beings, and in the same way. Just as acorns are potential oaks, human embryos are potential human beings.

The distinction between a potential person and an actual one makes a moral difference. Sentient creatures make claims on us that nonsentient ones do not; beings capable of experience and consciousness make higher claims still. Human life develops by degrees.

SCL : Yet there are people who disagree that life develops by degrees, and believe that a blastocyst is a person and, therefore, morally equivalent to a fully developed human being. MS : Certainly some people hold this belief. But a reason to be skeptical of the notion that blastocysts are persons is to notice that many who invoke it do not embrace its full implications.

President Bush is a case in point. In 2001, he announced a policy that restricted federal funding to already existing stem cell lines, so that no taxpayer funds would encourage or support the destruction of embryos. And in 2006, he vetoed a bill that would have funded new embryonic stem cell research, saying that he did not want to support “the taking of innocent human life.”

“The distinction between a potential person and an actual one makes a moral difference. Sentient creatures make claims on us that nonsentient ones do not; beings capable of experience and consciousness make higher claims still. Human life develops by degrees.”

But it is a striking feature of the president’s position that, while restricting the funding of embryonic stem cell research, he has made no effort to ban it. To adapt a slogan from the Clinton administration, the Bush policy might be summarized as “don’t fund, don’t ban.” But this policy is at odds with the notion that embryos are human beings.

SCL : If Bush’s policy were consistent with his stated beliefs, how, in your opinion, would it differ from his current “don’t fund, don’t ban” policy? MS : If harvesting stem cells from a blastocyst were truly on a par with harvesting organs from a baby, then the morally responsible policy would be to ban it, not merely deny it federal funding.

If some doctors made a practice of killing children to get organs for transplantation, no one would take the position that the infanticide should be ineligible for federal funding but allowed to continue in the private sector. In fact, if we were persuaded that embryonic stem cell research were tantamount to infanticide, we would not only ban it but treat it as a grisly form of murder and subject scientists who performed it to criminal punishment.

SCL : Couldn’t it be argued, in defense of the president’s policy, that Congress would be unlikely to enact an outright ban on embryonic stem cell research? MS : Perhaps. But this does not explain why, if the president really considers embryos to be human beings, he has not at least called for such a ban, nor even called upon scientists to stop doing stem cell research that involves the destruction of embryos. In fact, Bush has cited the fact that “there is no ban on embryonic stem cell research” in touting the virtues of his “balanced approach.”

The moral oddness of the Bush “don’t fund, don’t ban” position confused even his spokesman, Tony Snow. Last year, Snow told the White House press corps that the president vetoed the stem cell bill because he considered embryonic stem cell research to be “murder,” something the federal government should not support. When the comment drew a flurry of critical press attention, the White House retreated. No, the president did not believe that destroying an embryo was murder. The press secretary retracted his statement, and apologized for having “overstated the president’s position.”

How exactly the spokesman had overstated the president’s position is unclear. If embryonic stem cell research does constitute the deliberate taking of innocent human life, it is hard to see how it differs from murder. The chastened press secretary made no attempt to parse the distinction. His errant statement that the president considered embryo destruction to be “murder” simply followed the moral logic of the notion that embryos are human beings. It was a gaffe only because the Bush policy does not follow that logic.

SCL : You have stated that the president’s refusal to ban privately funded embryonic stem cell research is not the only way in which his policies betray the principle that embryos are persons. How so? MS : In the course of treating infertility, American fertility clinics routinely discard thousands of human embryos. The bill that recently passed in the Senate would fund stem cell research only on these excess embryos, which are already bound for destruction. (This is also the position taken by former governor Mitt Romney, who supports stem cell research on embryos left over from fertility clinics.) Although Bush would ban the use of such embryos in federally funded research, he has not called for legislation to ban the creation and destruction of embryos by fertility clinics.

SCL : If embryos are morally equivalent to fully developed human beings, doesn’t it then follow that allowing fertility clinics to discard thousands of embryos is condoning mass murder? MS : It does. If embryos are human beings, to allow fertility clinics to discard them is to countenance, in effect, the widespread creation and destruction of surplus children. Those who believe that a blastocyst is morally equivalent to a baby must believe that the 400,000 excess embryos languishing in freezers in U.S. fertility clinics are like newborns left to die by exposure on a mountainside. But those who view embryos in this way should not only be opposing embryonic stem cell research; they should also be leading a campaign to shut down what they must regard as rampant infanticide in fertility clinics.

Some principled right-to-life opponents of stem cell research meet this test of moral consistency. Bush’s “don’t fund, don’t ban” policy does not. Those who fail to take seriously the belief that embryos are persons miss this point. Rather than simply complain that the president’s stem cell policy allows religion to trump science, critics should ask why the president does not pursue the full implications of the principle he invokes.

If he does not want to ban embryonic stem cell research, or prosecute stem cell scientists for murder, or ban fertility clinics from creating and discarding excess embryos, this must mean that he does not really consider human embryos as morally equivalent to fully developed human beings after all.

But if he doesn’t believe that embryos are persons, then why ban federally funded embryonic stem cell research that holds promise for curing diseases and saving lives?

Essay Service Examples Health Stem Cell Research

Stem Cell Research: Argumentative Essay

Proper editing and formatting
Free revision, title page, and bibliography
Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Our writers will provide you with an essay sample written from scratch: any topic, any deadline, any instructions.

Cite this paper

Join our 150k of happy users

Get original paper written according to your instructions
Save time for what matters most

Fair Use Policy

EduBirdie considers academic integrity to be the essential part of the learning process and does not support any violation of the academic standards. Should you have any questions regarding our Fair Use Policy or become aware of any violations, please do not hesitate to contact us via [email protected].

We are here 24/7 to write your paper in as fast as 3 hours.

Provide your email, and we'll send you this sample!

By providing your email, you agree to our Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy .

Say goodbye to copy-pasting!

Get custom-crafted papers for you.

Enter your email, and we'll promptly send you the full essay. No need to copy piece by piece. It's in your inbox!

Embryonic Stem Cell Research An Ethical Dilemma

Article sidebar.

Main Article Content

Introduction

In November 1998, two teams of U.S. scientists confirmed successful isolation and growth of stems cells obtained from human fetuses and embryos. Since then, research that utilizes human embryonic cells has been a widely debated, controversial ethical issue. Human embryonic cells possess the ability to become stem cells, which are used in medical research due to two significant features. First, they are unspecialized cells, meaning they can undergo cell division and renew themselves even with long periods of inactivity. Secondly, stem cells are pluripotent, with the propensity to be induced to become specified tissue or any “organ-specific cells with special functions” depending on exposure to experimental or physiologic conditions, as well as undergo cell division and become cell tissue for different organs.

The origin of stem cells themselves encapsulates the controversy: embryonic stem cells, originate from the inner cell mass of a blastocyst, a 5-day pre-implantation embryo. The principal argument for embryonic stem cell research is the potential benefit of using human embryonic cells to examine or treat diseases as opposed to somatic (adult) stem cells. Thus, advocates believe embryonic stem cell research may aid in developing new, more efficient treatments for severe diseases and ease the pain and suffering of numerous people. However, those that are against embryonic stem cell research believe that the possibility of scientific benefits of research do not outweigh the immoral action of tampering with the natural progression of a fetal development and interfering with the human embryo’s right to live. In light of these two opposing views, should embryonic stem cells be used in research? It is not ethically permissible to destroy human embryonic life for medical progress.

Personhood and the Scientific Questionability of Embryonic Stem Cell Research

The ethics behind embryonic stem cell research are controversial because the criteria of ‘personhood’ is “notoriously unclear.” Personhood is defined as the status of being a person, entitled to “moral rights and legal protections” that are higher than living things that are not classified as persons. Thus, this issue touches on existential questions such as: When does life begin? and What is the moral status that an embryo possesses? There is a debate on when exactly life begins in embryonic development and when the individual receives moral status. For example, some may ascribe life starting from the moment of fertilization, others may do so after implantation or the beginning of organ function. However, since the “zygote is genetically identical to the embryo,” which is also genetically identical to the fetus, and, by extension, identical to the baby, inquiring the beginning of personhood can lead to an occurrence of the Sorites paradox, also acknowledged as “the paradox of the heap.”

The paradox of the heap arises from vague predicates in philosophy. If there is a heap of sand and a grain is taken away from that heap one by one, at what point will it no longer be considered a heap – what classifies it as a heap? The definition of life is similarly arbitrary. When, in the development of a human being, is an embryo considered a person with moral standing? The complexity of the ethics of embryonic stem cell research, like the Sorites paradox, demonstrates there is no single, correct way to approach a problem; thus, there may be multiple different solutions that are acceptable. Whereas the definition of personhood cannot be completely resolved on a scientific basis, it serves a central role in the religious, political, and ethical differences within the field of embryonic stem cell research. Some ethicists attempt to determine what or who is a person by “setting boundaries” (Baldwin & Capstick, 2007).

Utilizing a functionalist approach, supporters of embryonic stem cell research argue that to qualify as a person, the individual must possess several indicators of personhood, including capacity, self-awareness, a sense of time, curiosity, and neo-cortical function. Proponents argue that a human embryo lacks these criteria, thereby is not considered a person and thus, does not have life and cannot have a moral status. Supporters of stem cell research believe a fertilized egg is just a part of another person’s body until the cell mass can survive on its own as a viable human. They further support their argument by noting that stem cell research uses embryonic tissue before its implantation into the uterine wall. Researchers invent the term “pre-embryo” to distinguish a pre-implantation state in which the developing cell mass does not have the full respects of an embryo in later stages of embryogenesis to further support embryonic stem cell research. Based on this reductionist view of life and personhood, utilitarian advocates argue that the result of the destruction of human embryos to harvest stem cells does not extinguish a life. Further, scientists state that any harm done is outweighed by the potential alleviation of the suffering enduring by tremendous numbers of people with varying diseases. This type of reasoning, known as Bentham’s Hedonic (moral) calculus, suggests that the potential good of treating or researching new cures for ailments such as Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, certain cancers, etc. outweighs any costs and alleviate the suffering of persons with those aliments. Thus, the end goal of stem cell use justifies sacrificing human embryos to produce stem cells, even though expending life is tantamount to murder. Opponents of embryonic stem cell research would equate the actions done to destroy the embryos as killing. Killing, defined as depriving their victims of life, will therefore reduce their victims to mere means to their own ends. Therefore, this argument touches on the question: if through the actions of embryotic stem cell research is “morally indistinguishable from murder?” (Outka, 2013). The prohibition of murder extends to human fetuses and embryos considering they are potential human beings. And, because both are innocent, a fetus being aborted and an embryo being disaggregated are direct actions with the intention of killing. Violating the prohibition of murder is considered an intolerable end. We should not justify this evil even if it achieves good. Under the deontological approach, “whether a situation is good or bad depends on whether the action that brought it about was right or wrong,” hence the ends do not justify the means. Therefore, under this feeble utilitarian approach, stem cell research proceeds at the expense of human life than at the expense of personhood.

One can reject the asserted utilitarian approach to stem cell research as a reductionist view of life because the argument fails to raise ethical concerns regarding the destruction embryonic life for the possibility of developing treatments to end certain diseases. The utilitarian approach chooses potential benefits of stem cell research over the physical lives of embryos without regard to the rights an embryo possesses. Advocates of embryonic stem cell research claim this will cure diseases but there is a gap in literature that confirms how many diseases these cells can actually cure or treat, what diseases, and how many people will actually benefit. Thus, killing human embryos for the potentiality of benefiting sick people is not ethically not ethically permissible.

Where the argument of personhood is concerned, the development from a fertilized egg (embryo) to a baby is a continuous process. Any effort to determine when personhood begins is arbitrary. If a newborn baby is a human, then surely a fetus just before birth is a human; and, if we extend a few moments before that point, we would still have a human, and so on all the way back to the embryo and finally to the zygote. Although an embryo does not possess the physiognomies of a person, it will nonetheless become a person and must be granted the respect and dignity of a person. Thus, embryotic stem cell research violates the Principle of “Full Human Potential,” which states: “Every human being […] deserves to be valued according to the full level of human development, not according to the level of development currently achieved.” As technology advances, viability outside the womb inches ever closer to the point of inception, making the efforts to identify where life begins after fertilization ineffectual. To complicate matters, as each technological innovation arrives, stem-cell scientists will have to re-define the start of life as many times as there are new technological developments, an exhausting and never-ending process that would ultimately lead us back to moment of fertilization. Because an embryo possesses all the necessary genetic information to develop into a human being, we must categorically state that life begins at the moment of conception. There is a gap in literature that deters the formation of a clear, non-arbitrary indication of personhood between conception and adulthood. Considering the lack of a general consensus of when personhood begins, an embryo should be referred to as a person and as morally equivalent to a fully developed human being.

Having concluded that a human embryo has the moral equivalent of a fully-fledged human being, this field of research clearly violates the amiable rights of personhood, and in doing so discriminates against pre-born persons. Dr. Eckman asserts that “every human being has a right to be protected from discrimination.” Thus, every human, and by extension every embryo, has the right to life and should not be discriminated against their for “developmental immaturity.” Therefore, the field of embryonic stem cell research infringes upon the rights and moral status of human embryos.

Principle of Beneficence in Embryonic Stem Cell Research

The destruction of human embryos for research is not ethically permissible because the practice violates the principle of beneficence depicted in the Belmont Report, which outlines the basic ethical principles and guidelines owed to human subjects involved in research. Stem cell researchers demonstrate a lack of respect for the autonomy and welfare of the human embryos sacrificed in stem cell research.

While supporters of embryonic stem cell research under the utilitarian approach argue the potential benefits of the research, the utilitarian argument however violates the autonomy of the embryo and its human rights, as well as the autonomy of the embryo donors and those that are Pro-Life. Though utilitarian supporters argue on the basis of rights, they exclusively refer to the rights of sick individuals. However, they categorically ignore the rights of embryos that they destroy to obtain potential disease curing stem cells. Since an embryo is regarded as a human being with morally obligated rights, the Principle of Beneficence is violated, and the autonomy and welfare of the embryo is not respected due to the destruction of an embryo in stem cell research. Killing embryos to obtain stem cells for research fails to treat embryos as ends in an of themselves. Yet, every human ought to be regarded as autonomous with rights that are equal to every other human being. Thus, the welfare of the embryo is sacrificed due to lack of consent from the subject.

The Principle of Beneficence is violated when protecting the reproductive interests of women in infertility treatment, who are dependent on the donations of embryos to end their infertility. Due to embryonic stem cell research, these patients’ “prospects of reproductive success may be compromised” because there are fewer embryos accessible for reproductive purposes. The number of embryos necessary to become fully developed and undergo embryonic stem cell research will immensely surpass the number of available frozen embryos in fertility clinic, which also contributes to the lack of embryos available for women struggling with infertility. Therefore, the basis of this research violates women’s reproductive autonomy, thus violating the Principle of Beneficence.

It is also significant to consider the autonomy and welfare of the persons involved. The autonomous choice to donate embryos to research necessitates a fully informed, voluntary sanction of the patient(s), which poses difficulty due to the complexity of the human embryonic stem cell research. To use embryos in research, there must be a consensus of agreement from the mother and father whose egg and sperm produced the embryo. Thus, there has to be a clear indication between the partners who has the authority or custody of the embryos, as well as any “third party donors” of gametes that could have been used to produce the embryo because these parties’ intentions for those gametes may solely have been for reproductive measures only. Because the researchers holding “dispositional authority” over the embryos may exchange cell lines and its derivatives (i.e., genetic material and information) with other researchers, they may misalign interests with the persons whose gametes are encompassed within the embryo. This mismatch of intent raises complications in confidentiality and autonomy.

Lastly, more ethical complications arise in the research of embryonic stem cells because of the existence viable alternatives that to not destroy human embryos. Embryonic stem cells themselves pose as a higher health risk than adult stem cells. Embryonic stem cells have a higher risk of causing tumor development in the patient’s body once the cells are implanted due to their abilities to proliferate and differentiate. Embryonic stem cells also have a high risk of immunorejection, where a patient’s immune system rejects the stem cells. Since the embryonic stem cells are derived from embryos that underwent in vitro fertilization, when implanted in the body, the stem cell’s marker molecules will not be recognized by the patient’s body, resulting in the destruction of the stem cells as a defensive response to protect the body (Cahill, 2002). With knowledge of embryonic stem cells having higher complications than the viable adult stem cells continued use of embryonic stem cells violates the Principle of Beneficence not only for the embryos but for the health and safety of the patients treated with stem cells. Several adult stem cell lines (“undifferentiated cells found throughout the body”) exist and are widely used cell research. The use of adult stem cells represents research that does not treat human beings as means to themselves, thus, complying with the Principle of Beneficence. This preferable alternative considers the moral obligation to discover treatments, and cures for life threating diseases while avoiding embryo destruction.

It is not ethically permissible to destroy human embryonic life for medical progress due to the violations of personhood and human research tenets outlined in the Belmont Report. It is significant to understand the ethical implications of this research in order to respect the autonomy, welfare, beneficence, and basic humanity afforded to all parties involved. Although embryonic stem cell research can potentially provide new medical advancements to those in need, the harms outweigh the potential, yet ill-defined benefits. There are adult stem cell alternatives with equivalent viability that avoid sacrificing embryos. As society further progresses, humans must be cautious of compromising moral principles that human beings are naturally entitled to for scientific advancements. There are ethical boundaries that are crossed when natural processes of life are altered or manipulated. Though there are potential benefits to stem cell research, these actions are morally and ethically questionable. Thus, it is significant to uphold ethical standards when practicing research to protect the value of human life.

Shamblott, M. J., J. Axelman, S. Wang, E. M. Bugg, J. W. Littlefield, P. J. Donovan, P. D. Blumenthal, G. R. Huggins, and J. D. Gearhart. “Derivation of Pluripotent Stem Cells from Cultured Human Primordial Germ Cells.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 95, no. 23 (November 10, 1998): 13726–31. doi:10.1073/pnas.95.23.13726.

National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. “Stem Cell Basics I.” Stem Cell Information , 2016. https://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/1.htm .

Kitwood, Thomas Marris., Clive Baldwin, and Andrea Capstick. Tom Kitwood on Dementia: A Reader and Critical Commentary . Maidenhead, Berkshire: McGraw-Hill/Open University Press, 2007.

University of Michigan. “Stem Cell Research: Frequently Asked Questions,” 2013. http://www.stemcellresearch.umich.edu/overview/faq.html#section2 .

EuroStemCell. “Origins, Ethics and Embryos: The Sources of Human Embryonic Stem Cells,” 2016. https://www.eurostemcell.org/origins-ethics-and-embryos-sources-human-embryonic-stem-cells .

Perry, David L. “Some Issues in Contemporary Neurological Science and Technology,” 2011. https://www.scu.edu/ethics/focus-areas/bioethics/resources/ethics-and-personhood/ .

Swirsky, E. “Week Fourteen Unit: Minute Paper 5 [Blackboard Assignment],” 2018.

O’Mathúna, DP. “Personhood in Bioethics and Biomedical Research.” Research Practitioner 7 (2006): 167–74.

Grobstein, C. “External Human Fertilization.” Scientific American 240, no. 6 (June 1979): 57–67.

Mastin, L. “Deontology,” 2009. https://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_deontology.html .

Spitzer, Robert. “Introduction and Principles of Ethics.” In Ten Universal Principles: A Brief Philosophy of the Life Issues , xi–xii, 1-3, 20-29. San Fransisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 2011. https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/religion-and-philosophy/philosophy/introduction-amp-principles-of-ethics.html .

Eckman, Jim. “Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research.” Issues In Perspective , 2011. https://graceuniversity.edu/iip/2011/05/14-2/ .; Eckman, Jim. “The Devaluing of Life in America.” Issues In Perspective , 2015. https://graceuniversity.edu/iip/2015/09/the-devaluing-of-life-in-america/ .

Outka, Gene (2009) "The Ethics of Embryonic Stem Cell Research and the Principle of "Nothing is Lost"," Yale Journal of Health Policy, Law, and Ethics : Vol. 9 : Iss. 3 , Article 7.

Curzer, Howard. “The Ethics Of Embryonic Stem Cell Research.” The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 29, no. 5 (October 1, 2004): 533–62. doi:10.1080/03605310490514225.

Lo, Bernard, and Lindsay Parham. “Ethical Issues in Stem Cell Research.” Endocrine Reviews 30, no. 3 (May 2009): 204–13. doi:10.1210/er.2008-0031.

Hubbard, James. “Embryonic Stem-Cell Research: Experts Debate Pros and Cons.” The Survival Doctor , 2013. http://thesurvivaldoctor.com/2013/02/14/doctors-debate-embryonic-stem-cell-research-pros-and-cons/ .

Koch, Valerie Gutmann, Beth E. Roxland, Barbara Pohl, and Sarah K. Keech. “Contemporary Ethical Issues in Stem Cell Research.” In Stem Cells Handbook , 29–37. New York, NY: Springer New York, 2013. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-7696-2_2.

Cahill, Lisa Sowle. "Holland, Suzanne, Karen Lebacqz, and Laurie Zoloth, Eds. The Human Embryonic Stem Cell Debate: Science, Ethics, and Public Policy." The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 2, no. 3 (2002): 559-62. doi:10.5840/ncbq20022344.

Devolder, Katrien. The Ethics of Embryonic Stem Cell Research . Oxford University Press, 2015. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199547999.001.0001.

ScienceDaily. “Adult Stem Cell,” 2018. https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/adult_stem_cell.htm .

Article Details

Home — Essay Samples — Nursing & Health — Stem Cell Research — Stem Cell Research: Persuasive Speech

Stem Cell Research: Persuasive Speech

Categories: Stem Cell Stem Cell Research

About this sample

Words: 512 |

Published: Mar 16, 2024

Words: 512 | Page: 1 | 3 min read

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Prof Ernest (PhD)

Verified writer

Expert in: Science Nursing & Health

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2 pages / 812 words

3 pages / 1533 words

8 pages / 3463 words

5 pages / 2474 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Stem Cell Research

In conclusion, stem cell research holds immense promise for revolutionizing the field of medicine. Its potential to treat a wide range of diseases, revolutionize personalized medicine, improve drug development and testing, and [...]

In conclusion, stem cell research is a crucial area of research with the potential to improve the lives of millions of individuals. Despite ethical concerns surrounding the use of embryonic stem cells, there are viable [...]

Embryonic stem cell research is a topic that has been widely debated over the past few decades. The research involves the use of cells derived from embryos in order to study their properties and potential for medical use. The [...]

Stem cell research represents a groundbreaking field of science with the potential to revolutionize medicine, offering new avenues for treatment, understanding disease mechanisms, and regenerating damaged tissues. This essay [...]

This report was compiled by Lawrence Cruickshank and considers the advantages and disadvantages of both adult and embryonic stem cell research. This report will also cover the ethical debates surrounding this topic. The report [...]

Adult mammalian ovary has been under watch for over 10 years now since it was proposed to home stem cells that experience postnatal oogenesis amid reproductive period like spermatogenesis in testis. Ovarian stem cells are [...]

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

Instructions Followed To The Letter
Deadlines Met At Every Stage
Unique And Plagiarism Free

Exploring the Potential of Regenerative Medicine: An Argumentative Essay on Stem Cells

As the field of regenerative medicine continues to advance, an argumentative essay on stem cells becomes increasingly relevant. Stem cell research has sparked considerable debate due to its ethical implications and potential for revolutionary medical treatments. In this blog post, we will delve into the complex world of stem cells by first defining them and discussing their various types.

We will then explore both the benefits and ethical considerations surrounding stem cell treatments. As you continue reading, you’ll learn about arguments for and against the use of these unique cells in medicine as well as regulatory guidelines that govern their application.

Finally, we will examine Total Stem Cell’s approach to regenerative medicine using bone marrow derived stem cells while addressing safety concerns and efficacy. By understanding these key points discussed in our argumentative essay on stem cells, readers can make informed decisions regarding non-surgical approaches to healing chronic pain.

The unique properties of stem cells, addressing ethical concerns in stem cell research, total stem cell’s use of bone marrow-derived mscs, regenerative medicine applications in chronic pain conditions, future potential of stem cells in regenerative medicine, frequently asked questions argumentative essay on stem cells.

Stem cells possess two key characteristics that distinguish them from other types of cells: self-renewal and differentiation. These properties make stem cells incredibly valuable for medical research and treatment purposes, particularly in the field of regenerative medicine .

Self-renewal allows indefinite division in an undifferentiated state

Stem cells possess an extraordinary property of self-renewal, enabling them to divide without limit while remaining in an unspecialized form. This property of self-renewal enables a steady supply of fresh, healthy cells to be used therapeutically for tissue repair or replacement in the event of injury or illness.

Differentiation enables development into specialized cell types

Apart from self-renewal, another crucial feature that sets stem cells apart is their capacity for differentiation. Differentiation refers to the process by which these unspecialized cells develop into specific cell types with distinct functions within the body. For instance, a single stem cell has the potential to differentiate into muscle tissue, nerve tissue, or even bone depending on its environment and signaling cues it receives.

This extraordinary capability makes stem cell therapies like those offered by Total Stem Cell , particularly appealing for treating chronic pain conditions without resorting to invasive surgical procedures. By harnessing the power of these versatile biological building blocks found naturally within our bodies, regenerative medicine aims at providing patients with effective non-surgical alternatives tailored specifically towards their individual needs.

Stem cells’ capacity to continually regenerate and diverge makes them a potent asset for medical research. With ethical concerns in mind, researchers are exploring alternative methods such as SCNT to obtain iPS cells without compromising moral principles.

One primary concern surrounding stem cell therapy is its potential exploitation of human embryos as sources for embryonic stem (ES) cells. However, advancements in science have provided alternative methods such as somatic-cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) for obtaining pluripotent stem (iPS)cells without resorting to embryo destruction, thus addressing ethical concerns related to respect for life at its earliest stages.

Alternative Methods Like SCNT Avoid Embryo Destruction

Somatic-cell nuclear transfer involves transferring the nucleus from a somatic cell into an enucleated egg cell. This technique allows scientists to generate iPS cells that are genetically identical to the donor without destroying any embryos. The creation of these iPS cells has been a significant breakthrough in regenerative medicine and has helped address some of the ethical issues associated with using ES cells derived from human embryos. For more information on this groundbreaking method, you can read about it on National Center for Biotechnology Information’s website .

Obtaining iPS Cells Without Compromising Moral Principles

iPSC technology: Induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC) technology enables researchers to reprogram adult somatic cells back into their pluripotent state by introducing specific transcription factors. This process eliminates the need for using human embryos while still providing access to highly versatile and potentially therapeutic stem cells.
Bone marrow-derived stem cells: As an alternative to embryonic stem cells, researchers can also obtain mesenchymal stromal/stem Cells (MSCs) from adult bone marrow. These cells have shown promise in regenerative medicine applications and do not involve the destruction of embryos.
Umbilical cord blood: Another source of ethical stem cells is umbilical cord blood, which contains hematopoietic stem cells that can be used for various medical treatments without raising moral concerns. You can learn more about this process at the Parent’s Guide to Cord Blood Foundation .

In conclusion, advancements in science and technology have provided alternatives to using human embryos as sources for pluripotent stem cells. By focusing on methods like SCNT and iPSC technology or utilizing adult-derived MSCs, researchers are addressing ethical concerns while still harnessing the incredible potential of regenerative medicine through stem cell therapies.

By utilizing alternative methods such as SCNT, stem cell research can be conducted without compromising moral principles. Moving on to the use of bone marrow-derived MSCs in total stem cell therapies, these autologous treatments are safe and effective due to their minimally invasive nature.

Key Takeaway:

Advancements in science have provided alternative methods such as somatic-cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) for obtaining pluripotent stem cells without resorting to embryo destruction, thus addressing ethical concerns related to respect for life at its earliest stages. Researchers can also obtain mesenchymal stromal/stem Cells (MSCs) from adult bone marrow or use umbilical cord blood as sources of ethical stem cells. By focusing on these methods, researchers are addressing ethical concerns while still harnessing the incredible potential of regenerative medicine through stem cell therapies.

Companies like Total Stem Cell focus on utilizing bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stromal/stem Cells (MSCs), bypassing any ethical concerns associated with embryonic sources altogether. MSCs originate from adult tissue and do not require embryo destruction; instead, they come directly from patients’ own bodies during minimally invasive procedures such as bone marrow aspiration.

Autologous Therapies Ensure Safety and Efficacy

Autologous therapies, utilizing a person’s own cells for treatment, have numerous benefits compared to other sources of stem cells. By harvesting MSCs directly from the patientâ€™s body through a procedure called bone marrow aspiration , Total Stem Cell ensures that the treatments are both safe and effective. Since these cells come from the individual receiving treatment, there is no risk of immune rejection or disease transmission that can occur when using donor-derived stem cells.

Minimally Invasive Procedures Using Patients’ Own Bone Marrow

Bone Marrow Aspiration: This procedure involves extracting a small amount of bone marrow containing MSCs by inserting a needle into the hip bone under local anesthesia. The process is relatively quick and causes minimal discomfort to patients.
Mesenchymal Stromal/Stem Cell Isolation: Once extracted, the bone marrow sample undergoes processing in specialized laboratories where technicians isolate high-quality MSCs suitable for therapeutic applications.
Injections or Infusions: After isolating the MSCs, they are then administered back into the patient through targeted injections or intravenous infusions. These treatments aim to stimulate tissue repair and regeneration in areas affected by chronic pain conditions.

By focusing on bone marrow-derived MSCs, Total Stem Cell offers patients an ethical and effective option for regenerative medicine therapies that can help alleviate their chronic pain without resorting to invasive surgical procedures or relying on embryonic stem cell sources.

Total Stem Cell’s use of bone marrow-derived MSCs provides a safe and effective autologous therapy that is minimally invasive. Regenerative medicine applications in chronic pain conditions offer promising non-surgical treatment options, which have shown positive results for treating osteoarthritis and other conditions.

Total Stem Cell uses bone marrow-derived MSCs for regenerative medicine therapies, avoiding ethical concerns associated with embryonic sources. By utilizing autologous therapies and minimally invasive procedures like bone marrow aspiration, the treatments are safe and effective without risk of immune rejection or disease transmission. This approach offers an ethical option for chronic pain relief that does not require surgery or embryonic stem cell sources.

Regenerative medicine is a rapidly growing field that aims to repair or replace damaged tissue by harnessing the power of stem cells. This innovative approach has shown great promise in treating various chronic pain conditions such as osteoarthritis, degenerative disc disease, tendonitis, and more without resorting to invasive surgical procedures. Total Stem Cell specializes in providing non-surgical alternatives for patients suffering from these debilitating ailments through their cutting-edge MSC-based therapies.

Non-surgical Treatment Options for Chronic Pain

The use of mesenchymal stromal/stem Cells (MSCs) derived from bone marrow offers numerous benefits over traditional treatment methods for chronic pain sufferers. Some advantages include:

Faster recovery times compared to surgery
Reduced risk of complications and infections associated with invasive procedures
No need for general anesthesia or lengthy hospital stays
Potential long-term relief from pain and improved quality of life

Studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of MSC-based treatments, particularly when it comes to addressing inflammation and promoting tissue regeneration within affected areas.

Promising Results in Treating Osteoarthritis and Other Conditions

Osteoarthritis is one common condition where regenerative medicine using stem cell therapy has shown significant potential. Patients who undergo MSC-based treatments often experience reduced joint pain, increased mobility, and overall improvements in their daily lives. In addition to osteoarthritis, other chronic pain conditions that may benefit from this type of therapy include:

Rotator cuff injuries
Tennis elbow (lateral epicondylitis)
Achilles tendonitis
Plantar fasciitis

Research continues to explore the full potential of stem cell therapies in treating chronic pain conditions, with many clinical trials currently underway. As our understanding of these innovative treatments grows, so too does the hope for countless individuals suffering from debilitating pain.

Regenerative meds may offer a prospective, non-invasive resolution for those enduring from osteoarthritis and other aches and pains. Moving forward, research into stem cells and personalized regenerative treatments utilizing iPS technology should be conducted to determine their efficacy in treating autoimmune disorders.

The possibilities for stem cell research and regenerative medicine are vast, with ongoing clinical trials and cutting-edge technologies paving the way for revolutionary treatments. In this section, we will explore the potential applications of mesenchymal stromal/stem cells (MSCs) in treating autoimmune disorders and personalized regenerative medicine using induced pluripotent stem (iPS) technology.

Exploring Effectiveness Against Autoimmune Disorders

Autoimmune disorders like multiple sclerosis (MS) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA) occur when the immune system mistakenly attacks healthy tissues within the body. Current treatment options often involve managing symptoms rather than addressing their root cause. However, MSC-based therapies show promise as a more targeted approach to combating these debilitating conditions by modulating patients’ immune systems to reduce inflammation and promote tissue repair.

Potential benefits: MSCs have demonstrated anti-inflammatory properties that could help alleviate symptoms associated with autoimmune diseases.
Clinical trials: Researchers are currently conducting clinical trials investigating MSC-based therapies’ effectiveness against MS ( NCT04573270 ) and RA (NCT03671155). Researchers are currently assessing the safety and efficacy of MSC-based therapies for treating autoimmune disorders in clinical trials.

Personalized Regenerative Medicine Using iPS Technology

Cellular reprogramming with iPS technology allows adult cells to be transformed into pluripotent stem cells, similar to embryonic ones. Using iPS technology, regenerative medicine has the potential to be personalized according to a patient’s unique genetic makeup, thus minimizing risk of rejection or adverse side effects. By using a patient’s own cells, researchers can develop customized treatment plans that minimize the risk of rejection or adverse side effects.

Precision medicine: iPS technology allows for the development of targeted therapies based on each patient’s specific needs, increasing treatment effectiveness and reducing potential complications.
Disease modeling: Researchers can use iPS-derived cell lines to study disease progression and test new therapeutic interventions in vitro before moving on to clinical trials. This approach could accelerate drug discovery and improve our understanding of various conditions at a cellular level ( source ).

The future is bright for stem cell research and regenerative medicine as we continue uncovering new applications for MSCs in treating chronic pain conditions, autoimmune disorders, and more through innovative technologies like iPS. As advancements are made within this field, Total Stem Cell remains committed to providing cutting-edge non-surgical alternatives that harness the power of your body’s natural healing capabilities.

Stem cell research and regenerative medicine offer hope for treating autoimmune diseases, such as multiple sclerosis and rheumatoid arthritis, through the potential of mesenchymal stromal/stem cells (MSCs) to reduce inflammation and promote tissue repair combined with induced pluripotent stem (iPS) technology’s capacity to generate personalized therapies. MSCs and iPS technology have the potential to reduce inflammation, promote tissue repair, and create personalized therapies tailored to each patient’s genetic makeup. As advancements continue within this field, Total Stem Cell remains committed to providing cutting-edge non-surgical alternatives that harness the power of the body’s natural healing capabilities.

What are some of the arguments about using stem cells?

The use of stem cells in medicine is a highly debated topic. Proponents argue that it has immense potential for treating various diseases and injuries, as they can differentiate into specialized cell types and promote tissue regeneration. However, opponents raise ethical concerns regarding the sources of certain stem cells (e.g., embryonic) and potential risks associated with treatments.

What are common arguments against stem cell research?

Common arguments against stem cell research include ethical concerns surrounding the use of human embryos, which some consider to be morally equivalent to human life. Additionally, critics express concern over possible exploitation or commodification of embryos, as well as long-term safety issues related to experimental treatments.

What is the debate topic on stem cells?

The debate on stem cells primarily revolves around their potential medical applications versus ethical considerations concerning their sourcing and usage. This includes weighing benefits such as disease treatment and injury repair against moral dilemmas like embryo destruction or commodification and ensuring patient safety through rigorous regulatory guidelines.

Finally, stem cells offer a promising and moral solution for regenerative medicine. Total Stem Cell has taken the lead in this field by utilizing bone marrow stem cell treatments that are both safe and effective for treating chronic pain without surgery. This argumentative essay on stem cells highlights the importance of understanding all aspects of this innovative technology before making any decisions about treatment options. As research progresses, it is evident that stem cell treatments will remain a viable solution for those enduring chronic pain.

Discover the power of stem cell therapies and learn how they can help you restore your hair, reduce inflammation, and improve overall health. Schedule an appointment with a professional today to explore these treatments further!

Stem Cell Therapy
PRP Therapy
MLS Laser Therapy
Hair Restoration

WEB DESIGN BY VERSA DIGITAL MARKETING

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

Advanced Search
Journal List
v.2(3); 2001 Mar 15

Stem cell research—why is it regarded as a threat?

The British House of Lords voted on January 22, 2001 to ease restrictions on the use of human embryonic stem cells. Researchers in the UK are now allowed to use early stage human embryos for therapeutic purposes, mainly to retrieve stem cells. This decision comes amidst a heated debate regarding the medical and economic potential of stem cell research as against its ethical pitfalls. The scientific, legal, ethical and philosophical arguments have been discussed extensively ( Mieth, 2000 ; Colman and Burley, 2001 ). In this report I therefore propose to take it as established that stem cell technology has great promise for the treatment of a variety of diseases and, indeed, that stem cell therapy may hold exciting prospects for medical advances in the first decades of the 21 st century.

What I wish to discuss is why the prospect of stem cell therapy has been greeted, in quite widespread circles, not as an innovation to be welcomed but as a threat to be resisted. In part, this is the characteristic reaction of Luddites, who regard all technological innovation as threatening and look back nostalgically to a fictitious, golden, pre-industrial past. There are, however, also serious arguments that have been made against stem cell research; and it is these that I would like to discuss.

Stem cell technologies would be very expensive and available only to rich countries and to rich people

It is indisputable that most novel medical technologies are expensive. However, they usually get cheaper as the scale on which they are used increases. A good example is bone marrow transplantation, which initially was extremely expensive. A few decades later, bone marrow transplantation has become a routine procedure that is cheap enough to be used for the treatment of numerous diseases. The same will certainly happen with other therapeutics—be it β-interferon to treat multiple sclerosis, protease inhibitors to block HIV or monoclonal antibodies to target cancer cells. These agents are very expensive now because the cost of their development, testing and production has to be met, but they will rapidly become cheaper as more patients are treated, as the manufacturing process becomes more efficient and as patents expire.

There is, however, a further argument against this particular threat. One of the major financial problems of health care since World War II has been that major advances in clinical research resulted in ways of controlling diseases rather than curing them. The elderly and many chronically ill people in the First World now live a life of high quality. But this depends on the long-term administration of drugs to treat a number of conditions including high blood pressure, diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis and asthma. Consequently, the cost of health care in these countries has dramatically increased over the last few decades. Even for diseases such as Parkinson’s disease that cannot be adequately controlled, continuous therapy is given over many years to relieve symptoms. Stem cell therapy may indeed lead to cures for many ailments. It may become possible to cure Parkinson’s disease with grafts of brain cells. It is also likely that diabetes will be curable using stem cell treatment. It may also be possible to achieve at least something approaching a cure for cardiovascular diseases by replacing damaged endothelial cells in the blood vessels or the cardiomyocytes in the heart itself. If these promises hold true, stem cell therapy might result in a reduction in the overall cost of healthcare as a number of currently incurable diseases are cured.

Stem cell research would deviate efforts from other health strategies

It is difficult to tell in advance what type of research will give rise to what type of benefit. The fundamental research from which stem cell technology originated came from studies in developmental biology whose utility could not have been foreseen. Furthermore, current research into the mechanisms of cellular reprogramming and into the growth requirements of different cell lineages will not only advance scientific knowledge, but is also likely to become of widespread value in clinical medicine.

These two preceding arguments are essentially economic. The following are predominantly ethical and should therefore be given greater weight. But before considering them, it is worth remembering Onora O’Neill’s eloquent warning against declamatory or polemical ethics at the Millennium Festival of Medicine. Ethics is a subject grounded in philosophy and religion. Ethics cannot be determined by polling people and asking them what they think is right or wrong and simply accepting the view of the majority. It does require support from logically and philosophically coherent arguments.

Interference with the genome involves ‘playing God’

This argument reflects the view that divine creation is perfect and that it is inappropriate to alter it in any way. Such a point of view is particularly difficult to sustain in Western Europe where every acre of land bears the marks of more than 2000 years of human activity, and where no primordial wilderness remains. Ever since Homo sapiens gave up being a hunter and gatherer and took to herding animals and agriculture, he has modified the environment. All major food plants and domestic animals have been extensively modified over millennia. It is therefore impossible to sustain the idea that genetic interventions for food plants, animals and the therapy of human diseases are a categorical break from what has gone on throughout evolution.

The proposition that any attempt to interfere with the ‘perfect divine creation’ is morally wrong is also not widely held by theologians. The following quotation is from Professor Iain Torrance, Professor of Divinity in Aberdeen (personal communication), on the subject of co-creation:

‘Creation, understood in the light of the trajectory of the incarnation, is not a simple act. It is an enabling: a process in which a created realm is brought to its own reality and enabled to be itself. I suggest that this may give us a charter for some acts in which we do co-operate with God, though it would be rash ever to claim confidently that any specific act were such. I believe we are invited to share in this activity of enabling, which brings the created world closer to perfection. We never know what perfection is or when we have arrived there. Art is a kind of creation of beauty and may in some sense act as an analogy.

I believe we have an authority to intervene, so as to heal and restore, but not to manipulate and destroy.’

Unfortunately, the idea of a perfect creation was adopted by the early evolutionary biologists who, understandably, were greatly impressed by the elegance of evolutionary adaptation. They therefore tended to replace a perfect divine creation with a perfect evolutionary adaptation. But when scientists began to study the molecular mechanisms of evolution, it turned out that there are only a limited number of strategies available to achieve adaptation. The evolution of many molecular systems demonstrates that adaptation is by no means a perfect process but very much a matter of ‘muddling through’. It is perfectly clear, for example, that no competent engineer would design a creature walking on two legs as badly adapted to the upright posture as is Man. If Man were really made physically in the image of God, it would be bad news for an immortal God.

There has been a desire among political figures as widely separated as Karl Marx and Adolf Hitler to incorporate ‘scientific Darwinism’ into their particular political theories. They have generally failed to understand the nature of the evolutionary process, particularly in believing that natural selection produces an overall, optimal phenotype. To give a current example, if the HIV pandemic continues unabated it will provide a very strong selective pressure in favour of those few people who lack the receptors—CD4 and CCR5—to which the virus attaches. One can imagine that, in due course, their progeny could become dominant in large parts of the world. However, there is no reason whatsoever to believe that these survivors would necessarily be particularly intelligent, beautiful, moral or have other survival characteristics. Furthermore, mutation of the receptor genes may impair their immune system’s ability to deal with other diseases. Survival of the fittest—an unfortunate phrase in any case—simply describes those who are fittest to survive under those selective pressures that exist at any one time.

The idea of ‘playing God’ also carries with it the proposition that there is knowledge that may be too dangerous for mankind to know. This is an entirely pernicious proposition, which finds few defenders in modern democratic societies. On the other hand, there is a general agreement that there are things which should not be done—in science as in other areas of life. In the context of stem cell research, this may be summed up by Kant’s injunction that ‘humanity is to be treated as an end in itself’. The intention of stem cell research is to produce treatments for human diseases. It is difficult not to regard this as a worthy end, and more difficult to see that there could be any moral objection to curing the sick, as demanded by the Hippocratic oath.

Somatic cell nuclear transfer is immoral as it involves creating embryos only to destroy them

The essential problem here is to decide at what stage of development a human embryo acquires the interests—and the rights to protect these interests—that characterize a human being, i.e. when does an embryo become part of humanity? This is a problem that has occupied a great deal of theological and philosophical attention and the arguments have been extensively discussed ( Dunstan, 1990 ; Dunstan and Seller, 1988 ).

One principal condition is regarded as sufficient to confer interests and the right to defend them—sentience. In this context, sentience is neither the ability to think—which is in any case very difficult to define—nor is it the ability to feel pain. Sentience is defined as the ability to form any links with the outside world. Until an organism has a rudimentary central nervous system and some sense receptors—be it for pain, touch, smell, taste, sight or sound—it cannot form any contact with the outside world and therefore is not sentient. It therefore does not seem possible to attribute sentience to a pre-implantation embryo, or indeed even to an implanted embryo until it has developed some form of nervous system and sense organs. Along the same line, we now universally accept that a human being is dead when no contact with the outside world can be demonstrated by central nervous function. Certainly, death is regarded as having occurred well before every individual cell of the body has died.

The medieval church took the view that an embryo acquired a soul, or it became animatus , at the same time that it became formatus , i.e. when it acquired recognisable human form. This doctrine was derived from Aristotle who curiously believed males to become formatus at 40 days, whereas females were not so until 80 days of gestation. The medieval church held that the abortion of an embryo that was neither formatus nor animatus was only a fineable offence; and it was only after an embryo had become animatus that abortion became a mortal sin. At the core of the refusal of the Roman Catholic Church to countenance embryo research is a doctrine by Pope Pius IX, who declared in 1869 that an embryo acquires full human status at fertilization. This may have been partly in response to an increased frequency of abortion but it is likely also to have been influenced by a desire to bring Christian doctrine into line with 19 th century embryology.

But women lose large numbers of pre-implantation embryos throughout their reproductive life. These embryos are not mourned, they are not given burial and no one says prayers for them. The intra-uterine coil, widely used as a method of contraception—though not permitted by the Roman Catholic church—is designed to prevent implantation of embryos and, again, is not regarded as being morally reprehensible.

Further difficulties for the view that full human status is acquired at fertilization arise from advances in reproductive biology. Somatic cell nuclear transfer does not involve fertilization and thus turns the Pius IX doctrine ad absurdum , since it makes it possible to see in any somatic cell whose nucleus can be introduced into an oocyte, the potential for giving rise to a complete human being. When reprogramming of cells becomes better understood, it may be possible to convert somatic cells into embryos without the need for an oocyte. If, ultimately, any somatic cell has the potential of being grown into a complete embryo and, subsequently, into a human being, it would logically mean that we should ascribe a moral status to every cell in the body—a concept that is clearly ridiculous.

The view that an embryo does not acquire the status of a human being until it is obviously of human form with a central nervous system and organs (as is the view of the Protestant church), or even until it is delivered (which is the view of the Jewish religion), is more defensible on philosophical grounds than is stating that human status is acquired at fertilization. Of course, any decision relating to the particular point in development at which an embryo acquires full human status must be partially arbitrary. There are other cases where there is blurring at the interface of two categories or where distinctions are made slightly arbitrarily. This is the case in distinguishing between plants and animals; in distinguishing between male and female; and in distinguishing between the living and dead at the end of life. But the fact that making distinctions can sometimes be difficult is not an argument for making fundamentalist distinctions or making no distinction at all.

Allowing stem cell research is the thin end of a wedge leading to neo-eugenics, ‘designer’ children, and discrimination against the less-than-perfect

Francis Cornford wrote in the Microcosmographica Academica : ‘The Principle of the Wedge is that you should not act justly now for fear of raising expectations that you may act still more justly in the future—expectations which you are afraid you will not have the courage to satisfy. A little reflection will make it evident that the Wedge argument implies the admission that the persons who use it cannot prove that the action is not just. If they could, that would be the sole and sufficient reason for not doing it, and this argument would be superfluous.’ ( Cornford, 1908 ). It is inherent in what Cornford writes that the fear that one may not behave justly on a future occasion is hardly a reason for not behaving justly on the present occasion.

In addition to this philosophical argument, one should consider that there are also cogent biological reasons for opposing reproductive cloning using cell nuclear transfer. This is a form of vegetative reproduction, a technique used only by plants and a few lower animals. The late William Hamilton pointed out ( Hamilton et al ., 1990 ) that primitive animals which have the opportunity of adopting vegetative reproduction have uniformly failed to do so. He argues that it is the challenge of parasitism that makes the use of sexual reproduction, with its re-assortment of genes at each generation, advantageous in evolutionary terms.

In fact, the use of reproductive cloning can be defended only for farm animals, where this technique may be the best for producing, for example, cows that are resistant to BSE or sheep resistant to scrapie. Reproductive cloning should not be applied to Man and its widespread use might be evolutionarily harmful. We are also not sure yet whether somatic cells used for generating embryos carry mutations that have the potential to harm later generations. However, this is not a problem when using stem cells for therapeutic purposes.

The Universal Declaration on the Human Genome ( http://www.unesco.org/ibc/uk/genome/projet/ ), which UNESCO hopes will be incorporated into national laws, specifically prohibits the use of genetic manipulation to ‘improve’ humans. Vigilance will certainly always be needed to prevent the misuse of this technology, but it is unlikely that the use of stem cells carries any particularly devastating dangers.

Eventually, an ‘immortal’ population could evolve and that would create its own moral problems

This proposal derives from John Harris who is sufficiently impressed by the promises of stem cell therapy to believe that we may have to face a population that can live two or even more centuries ( Harris, 2000 ). Success on that sort of scale seems a long way off—but it would be an accolade to medicine to have that set of problems to face!

I wish to close with another quotation from the Microcosmographica Academica : ‘There is only one reason for doing something; the rest are arguments for doing nothing.’ The Luddites can always produce a variety of more or less plausible arguments for resisting technological innovation. But without innovation we would not have moved on from the Stone Age to the Computer Age in only ∼100 generations. The present arguments for doing nothing are no more potent than all preceding ones.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is kve05301.jpg

Colman A. and Burley, J.C. (2001) A legal and ethical tightrope. EMBO Reports , 2 , 2–5. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Cornford F.M. (1908) Microcosmographica Academica . Bowes & Bowes, Cambridge, UK.
Dunstan G.R. (1990) The Human Embryo: Aristotle and the Arabic and European Traditions . University of Exeter Press, Exeter, UK.
Dunstan G.R. and Seller, M.J. (1988) The Status of the Human Embryo: Perspectives from Moral Tradition . King Edward’s Hospital Fund for London & Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
Hamilton W.D., Axelrod, R. and Tanese, R. (1990) Sexual reproduction as an adaptation to resist parasites. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA , 87 , 3566–3573. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Harris J. (2000) Essays on science and society: intimations of immortality. Science , 288 , 5. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Mieth D. (2000) Going to the roots of the stem cell debate. EMBO Reports , 1 , 4–6. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

How It Works
Testimonials

Stem Cell Argumentative Essay

The modern science has achieved tremendous successes in different fields. In this respect, researches in the field of genetics are particularly noteworthy because they can start a new era in the medicine and science at large. However, today, the research of stem cells and their use in the modern medicine often confronts the opposition from the part of the public as well as specialists. In spite of a considerable progress in the stem cells research, it still remains a kind of battlefield between opponents and proponents of the stem cells research. In actuality, there are no alternatives to the further research in the field of genetic, including stem cells researches because the potential of these researches outweigh arguments of their opponents.

On analyzing the problem of the stem cells research and related issues, it is important to lay emphasis on the fact that opponents of such researches basically stand on the religious ground. At any rate, they view the stem cells research as an attempt of scientists to play God. Obviously, this attempt is offensive for representatives of different religions. Therefore, they develop their arguments concerning the necessity to ban totally the stem cells research. Their position is backed up by scientists, who believe that the stem cells research raise unsurpassable ethical barriers, because such researches can raise the problem of cloning and other arguable issues.

However, all the arguments of opponents of the stem cells research are irrelevant to the huge potential and benefits the research can bring to the mankind. First of all, the stem cells research extends human knowledge of genetics and functioning of living organisms at large (Benoff, & Grauman, 1997). The research in this field provides scientists with valuable scientific information that can be used in the medicine as well as other fields. At the same time, the stem cells research definitely contributes to the progress of medicine and genetics. In such a context, opposing to the stem cells research is similar to opposing to the research of the outer space and solar system in the Middle Ages. What is meant here is the fact that it is impossible to stop the progress. Moreover, attempts to stop the progress, including the ban of the stem cells research, can be harmful because, in such a way, the progress of the modern medicine and genetics will be postponed. Therefore, instead of the better understanding of the subject and its essence and using its full potential, scientists will view the stem cells research as a taboo.

At this point, it is possible to refer to numerous benefits the stem cells research can bring to the science, medicine and mankind at large. In fact, the stem cells research can contribute to the efficient treatment of terminally ill patients (Duin, 1999). For instance, today, health care professionals can save lives of patients who would have died without findings made in the result of the stem cells research. In addition, the stem cells research open larger opportunities for transplantation that will save lives of many patients and help them to return to the normal life.

Thus, any attempts to ban the stem cells research lead to the retardation of the development of medicine. In contrast, the in-depth research of stem cells will lead to the better understanding of the subject that will help to overcome ethically arguable issues since the better scientists know the subject of the research the less is the risk of unethical behavior of researchers.

References: Benoff, M., & Grauman, D. M. (1997). Mastering the physician integration challenge. Healthcare Financial Managemen t. Westchester. Duin, J. (1999, July). “Reckless reproduction?” Insight on the News 15 (26), 41.

Find out how much your paper will cost

Our services

Custom Paper Writing

Term Papers
Research Papers
Thesis Papers
Dissertations
Presentations
Case Studies
Assignments

Essay Types

5-Paragraph Essay
Argumentative Essay
Analysis of Book
Analytical Essay
Business Report
Critical Essay
Creative Essay
Cause and Effect Essay
Descriptive Essay
Classification Essay
Deductive Essay
Expository Essay
Narrative essay
Persuasive Essay

Additional Services

Proofreading
Free Papers
Essay Writing Blog
Revision Policy
Money Back Guarantee

Our services are 100% legal. They do not go against university policies.

You are expected to use the paper that you order as follows:

As a way to gain a proper understanding of the subject
As a way to improve the reasoning of your research (you should reference the paper properly)
If you want to paraphrase the paper, please make sure that it is done according to your institution's policies to avoid plagiarism
A source in your research (please cite accordingly)

We expect you to respect our copyright and effort.

Site Management

Entertainment
Life & Style

To enjoy additional benefits

CONNECT WITH US

What ails Indian research papers? Poor quality or just bad grammar? Premium

India comes third after china and the u.s. in the number of research papers published, but the rejection rate of indian papers is also high, not so much due to poor research but more so due to weak language and grammar.

Updated - August 20, 2024 02:23 pm IST

Published - August 20, 2024 11:34 am IST

Image for representation

K.M. Ajith’s first research paper, co-authored with his supervisor in 2005, was about mathematical physics they had worked out in quantum field theory. The U.K. journal to which the paper was submitted had no hesitation in accepting the quality of the research work, yet the review was quite scathing.

“The reviewer pointed out grammatical errors, including for punctuation marks. And asked us to re-write from scratch,” says Mr. Ajith, who is now a professor at the National Institute of Technology, Karnataka.

The authors may have known quantum mechanics but not how to write succinctly. They asked for help from friends who were also pursuing research but whose English was better. Part of the difficulty was in rewriting the technical terms. Yet they managed to avoid jargon as much as possible to make it to the journal.

Mr. Ajith studied in a Malayalam medium school, and his exposure to English was minimal at that time. Twenty years into research and publishing, Mr. Ajith now speaks about why budding researchers should be good writers too.

India comes third after China and the U.S. in the number of research papers published, says a paper titled, Academic Writing in India: A Research Scholar’s View . But in the same paper, the authors also say the rejection rate of Indian papers is high, not so much due to poor research but more so due to weak language and grammar.

In a 2019 public notice, UGC said that writing programmes should be organised in research institutions to overcome this skill deficiency.

Somadatta Karak, head of science communication and public outreach at the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology, says, despite the courses, Indian students struggle with writing. She is concerned about the intensity and reach of the writing workshops and frameworks.

“When I go to tier 2 cities and take workshops on science communication, students there have not even heard or thought about all of these,” says Ms. Karak.

According to Kanika Singh, who directs the writing program at Ashoka University, the higher education system in India has no separate emphasis on writing. “If writing is institutionalised as part of your curriculum and you write in different ways daily, then your science research thesis will become better,” says Ms. Singh.

Eldho Mathews, programme officer (Internationalisation of Higher Education), The Kerala State Higher Education Council, says even students who join top-tier research institutions are trained in a way that gives little importance to writing.

“At the level of screening [for admissions to research institutions], it is important to evaluate the level of language skills. By incorporating this factor into testing systems, the government and institutions can effectively motivate students to develop their writing skills early on,” he said.

Why writing should be taught as core skill

Asha Channakar, a researcher at the Institute for Stem Cell Science and Regenerative Medicine (InStem), Bengaluru, had a similar experience like Mr. Ajith with her first paper. “The first time I wrote, it took a lot of time to understand how to write.”

Ms. Channakar says that when she started to write, she read a lot of papers, and tried to connect the writing and presentation with what she wanted to convey. This was while she was a project assistant at the National Brain Research Centre in 2019. Later, she took research writing classes at the National Centre for Biological Sciences as part of her PhD at InStem.

“They taught how to write a scientific manuscript, and there was also an assignment to write for the non-scientific community,” says Ms. Channakar. She has now grown to become the first author of a paper published recently at InStem.

Ranjana Sarma, who has a PhD in Biochemistry from Montana State University, says, “Our researchers struggle with the flow of ideas more than the language.”

Unlike Mr. Ajith and Ms. Channakar, Ms. Sarma got the benefit of the U.S. research ecosystem. When she first wrote a review paper, the feedback was, “Ranjana doesn’t know English.”

“Coming from India, this was a huge ego-crusher,” says Ms. Sarma, who consistently scored high in English back home.

In 2004, she was put into a course offered by Penn State University to learn not only writing but also how to present and peer review. In the U.S., she learned that writing should be simple and easy to read with short sentences. The writing classes Ms. Sarma took influenced her not only to write but also to think and how to pay attention to what she reads.

“Language does look like a challenge for most researchers, as they write in a heavy, academic style. Despite English being the language of science in India, most researchers find it difficult to express themselves in plain, simple English,” says Subhra Priyadarshini, Chief Editor of Global Supported Projects, Nature Portfolio.

Can AI help?

Of late, students use software like Grammarly to correct language and grammar. Although Mr. Ajith appreciates such software, he also says that the tools will not help students to do the critical thinking while writing. “Grammarly is not writing a paper for you; all it does is to check the grammar of what you have already written,” says Anannya Dasgupta, Associate Professor of literature and arts at Krea University, Andhra Pradesh.

Ms. Dasgupta, who is now the director of the Centre for Writing and Pedagogy at Krea University, started her writing stint as a course coordinator while pursuing her PhD at Rutgers University, the U.S. According to Ms. Dasgupta, to improve the quality of writing, more people should be trained to teach writing.

Teaching writing also involves teaching how to think through the questions and how to build an argument, says Pooja Sagar, who teaches the Writing for Research and Analysis at the Indian Institute for Human Settlements (I.I.H.S.), Bengaluru.

Can AI help? Almost all the established researchers said it could help to an extent. But at the level of research papers, a lot of critical thinking is required that AI can’t deliver. They also cautioned about AI providing false information.

Top News Today

Access 10 free stories every month
Save stories to read later
Access to comment on every story
Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products

Terms & conditions | Institutional Subscriber

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.

IMAGES

⇉Stem Cells Research Argumentative Paper Essay Example
Stem Cell Essay
😂 Stem cell persuasive essay. A persuasive essay for the use of stem
Stem Cell Research
Ethical and Legal Debate and Implications of Stem Cell Research Essay
Stem cells

COMMENTS

Examining the ethics of embryonic stem cell research
MS: Proponents argue that embryonic stem cell research holds great promise for understanding and curing diabetes, Parkinson's disease, spinal cord injury, and other debilitating conditions. Opponents argue that the research is unethical, because deriving the stem cells destroys the blastocyst, an unimplanted human embryo at the sixth to ...
Stem Cell Research: Argumentative Essay
Through each stage of fetal development, the embryo will have its stem cells differentiated into different cells. Examples will include muscle, neural, intestinal, cardiac, liver, and blood cells. Research using these undifferentiated cells requires the destruction of an embryo, making the practice an immoral undertone.
Stem Cell Research Argumentative Essay
Embryonic Stem Cell Research Persuasive Essay. 901 Words | 4 Pages. Embryonic stem cell research was established in the early 80's and has since sparked into a highly controversial issue involving religious debates over the use of human embryos. Embryonic stem cells are considered to be unspecialized cells, which can be manipulated into ...
Argumentative Essay On Stem Cell Research
Stem Cell Research Argumentative Essay. The stem cell debate would only grow worse during George W. Bush's presidency in what would become known as the Bush controversy. In 2001, Bush " [limited] federal funding of research on human embryonic stem cells because a human embryo was destroyed in the progress" (Cohen).
Stem Cell Research Argumentative Essay
Stem Cell Research Argumentative Essay. 1542 Words7 Pages. Scientists have recently discovered that a rare blinding disease, caused by a mutated ATF6 gene, could quite possibly be cured by stem cell therapy. Scientists have been researching the stem cell for many years, but they are now considering the application of stem cell therapy in ...
Embryonic Stem Cell Research
The principal argument for embryonic stem cell research is the potential benefit of using human embryonic cells to examine or treat diseases as opposed to somatic (adult) stem cells. Thus, advocates believe embryonic stem cell research may aid in developing new, more efficient treatments for severe diseases and ease the pain and suffering of ...
Stem Cell Research Argumentative Essay
Stem cells are ethically debatable because of their many advantages and disadvantages. Basically, stem cells are cells humans and mammals have that have the capability to become specialized (Aldridge 1). "There are three kinds of stem cells: embryonic, adult, and cord 1blood" (" Stem Cell Research" 1). Human embryonic stem cells are the ...
PDF Stem Cell Research
STEM CELL RESEARCH - PERSUASIVE ESSAY OUTLINE INTRODUCTION (1 paragraph) Sentence 1: Grab the reader's attention with a "hook" Sentences 2-5*: Preview the argument; identify the opposing points of view; provide background information if necessary Concluding sentence: A thesis statement revealing the position you are arguing
Stem Cell Research Argumentative Essay
Stem Cell Research Argumentative Essay. Decent Essays. 884 Words. 4 Pages. Open Document. In the past decade, stem cell research has gained popularity in the biomedical field. Many scientists believe stem cells could be the breakthrough tool that is necessary to change the way we understand medicine. The same scientists feel stem cells ...
Stem Cell Research Argumentative Essay
Stem Cell Research Persuasive Essay. Stem cell research is a medical advancement that many view as either morally wrong or a stepping stone to better medical treatments. Stem cells are defined by the National Institutes of Health as "cells that have the potential to develop into some or many different cell types in the body [and] can ...
Stem Cell Research: The Importance and Future Potential
This rebuttal strengthens the argument in favor of stem cell research by showing that there are viable alternatives to embryonic stem cells, which can address the ethical concerns while still allowing for the development of new medical treatments. ... Stem Cell Research: Persuasive Speech Essay. p >Stem cell research is a topic that has been in ...
Stem Cell Research Argumentative Essay
The essay "Best Hope Lies in Privately Funded Stem Cell Research", states the importance of stem cell research and the effects it can have on curing disease more effectively than any other method. Written by Sigrid Fry-Revere, PhD, director of bioethics studies at the Cato Institute; the author of the paper emphasizes the importance of ...
Stem Cell Research: Persuasive Speech
The primary argument of this essay is that stem cell research holds incredible potential for the development of new medical treatments and therapies. By harnessing the regenerative capabilities of stem cells, scientists can potentially find cures for various debilitating diseases and injuries, ultimately improving the quality of life for ...
Exploring the Potential of Regenerative Medicine: An Argumentative
This argumentative essay on stem cells highlights the importance of understanding all aspects of this innovative technology before making any decisions about treatment options. As research progresses, it is evident that stem cell treatments will remain a viable solution for those enduring chronic pain.
Stem cell research—why is it regarded as a threat?
An investigation of the economic and ethical arguments made against research with human embryonic stem cells. The British House of Lords voted on January 22, 2001 to ease restrictions on the use of human embryonic stem cells. Researchers in the UK are now allowed to use early stage human embryos for therapeutic purposes, mainly to retrieve stem ...
Stem Cell Research Argumentative Essay
Stem cell research can lead to tremendous social benefits and economic gains for society with the creation of a multitude of different types of jobs. Stem cell research has been affected by the cut in funding due to all the debate. Former President Barack Obama approved major funding difficulties in stem cell research. This will help the United ...
Stem Cell Research Argumentative Essay
Stem Cell Research Argumentative Essay. Beginning in the mid twentieth century, embryonic stem cell research has gradually evolved into a paramount and controversial issue in American society. The practice includes the inherent destruction of human embryos for the harvest of stem cells that are used in medical science to treat patients and ...
Stem Cell Research Argumentative Essay
Stem Cell Argumentative Essay. The modern science has achieved tremendous successes in different fields. In this respect, researches in the field of genetics are particularly noteworthy because they can start a new era in the medicine and science at large. However, today, the research of stem cells and their use in the modern medicine often ...
Stem Cell Research Argumentative Essay
Stem Cell Research Argumentative Essay. 1230 Words5 Pages. Stem cell research is growing in popularity throughout the world of medicine. Stem cell therapy has the ability to treat and cure many diseases that account for a large amount of fatalities today. According to the Stem Cell Research Foundation, stem cell therapy is "A group of new ...
Stem Cell Research Persuasive Essay
Stem cell research has allowed scientists across the world to have a better understanding of how the body uses its resources to replace sick or diseased cells. As research progresses, new discoveries are being made. Until recently it was believed that the only way to retrieve stem cells was through embryonic dissection.
Exciting advance in stem cell therapy
Apr. 15, 2021 — Using a new single-cell technique, researchers have uncovered a way to understand the programming behind how stem cells make particular cell types. The research uncovered new ...
Stem Cell Research Argumentative Essay
Stem Cell Research Argumentative Essay. 1208 Words5 Pages. Stem Cell treatment and research is a topic, which is constantly developing within the world of science. It is believed that stem cell treatment has no limit and it can treat any disease if the correct research is put into it. One disease that is successful when treated with stem cell ...
Stem Cell Research Argumentative Essay
Stem Cell Research Argumentative Essay. Decent Essays. 882 Words. 4 Pages. Open Document. Research has shown that studying stem cells has provided possibilities for treating neurological disorders. Scientists have performed studies that have allowed blind patients to gain vision again and have also discovered that sustaining the blood-brain ...
What ails Indian research papers? Poor quality or just bad grammar?
K.M. Ajith's first research paper, co-authored with his supervisor in 2005, was about mathematical physics they had worked out in quantum field theory. The U.K. journal to which the paper was ...
Argumentative Essay On Stem Cells
Embryonic Stem Cell Research Persuasive Essay 667 Words | 3 Pages. Over the years, there have been many controversial issues surrounding medical research, but one of the most arguable topics of all time is the use of embryonic stem cells. Some individuals believe that extracting stem cells from unborn babies will be useful to create new ...