Implications Post

If this issue were not to be resolved and the debate of ethics and federal funding continue to be argued, embryonic stem cell research would continue to advance at the same rate as it is now: slower than what it could be with the proper support and funding. If people are willing to come to a consensus, research would be able to further advance at a more rapid pace.
Even though all of the controversies I have discussed throughout this blog will continue to be debated in the future, I believe, whether federally or privately funded, stem cell research will continue to make progress and eventually be able to develop successful treatments and possibly cures. Much of the funding issue will change drastically with the upcoming 2008 presidential election. For example, if Hilary Clinton becomes elected, she has already stated she does not agree with President Bush’s veto on a bill for federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, calling it a “ban on hope.” As with other democratic front runners, many believe in supporting embryonic stem cell research with federal funding. Therefore if a democrat is to be elected president in 2008, the chances of a bill being passed to allow federal funding for embryonic stem cell research is likely. If embryonic stem cell research is able to gain positive support along with ample amount of funding, I believe there will be progress in research, and eventually within the next decade, cures found. Bioethics expert, Christopher Thomas Scott, gives a hypothetical timeline of events he feels will progress with stem cell research, stating that by 2014 the first cell therapy will be used in clinics.
Researching both sides of this issue and seeing the different viewpoints, the controversies over embryonic stem cell research will never completely diminish. Both sides of this binary issue contain strong arguments and reliable facts which rely on the personal opinion of the individual to come to a decision. Since the ethical issue of using embryos for research is not going to completely resolve, the progress of using adult stem cells will advance at a more rapid rate than with using embryos.

Helpful Links:

Many websites I have found discuss the topic of funding the research of stem cells. One I have found shows the view that private funding is the best hope for funding stem cell research.
(1)
Others discuss the issue of the federal funding and the veto of President Bush of a bill that would have loosened the restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.
(1);(2)
A good website I have found showing both sides of the binary issue of stem cell research that is unbiased and brings up several points on the issue:
(1)
Issues of religion have been raised on the ethical issue of embryonic stem cell research and whether an embryo is considered a human.
(1);(2)
Several of the other websites I have found have been helpful in understanding what an embryonic stem cell is and how the research will be able to help in finding cures of several diseases such as Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, and diabetes. These websites show the distinction between a human adult stem cell and an embryonic stem cell, along with the pros and cons of the use of both.
(1);(2);(3)
An informative fact sheet:(1)

Class-Links

As this blog is an English class project, through reading my classmates’ blogs, I have found some of them contain relevant information pertaining to my current issue of stem cell research. One fellow classmate is also examining the issue of stem cell research. Mike brings up some similar topics such as federal funding, embryonic vs. adult stem cell usage, and also a very interesting recent post about cloning.
This issue of stem cell research is very closely linked to the issue of abortion. Whether or not a person is in agreement with embryonic stem cell research is highly dependant upon their view of when an embryo is considered a human, the moment of conception or anywhere up to birth. This same question is relevant in the abortion debate: when life begins, whether abortion is ethical or is killing an innocent human being. Two fellow classmates’ blogs discuss the topic of abortion; both touching on the topics of when life begins and legalizing abortion, along with the pros and cons of the matter. Hotshot’s blog contains an interesting illustration on the debate of when life begins for a human from different viewpoints, which emphasizes the various opinions of the public. KGoods discusses the church’s viewpoint on the issue of abortion stating the church opposes it and believes abortion is a “grave evil.” This supports the viewpoint of the church and Pope on my issue where the church is also against and believes embryonic stem cell research “violates the dignity of human life.”

A Theory...

Using embryonic stem cells for research is more beneficial to scientists in searching for cures of several human diseases, such as diabetes and Alzheimer’s, than using adult stem cells. Using embryonic stem cells, also referred to as “blank” cells can be manipulated into any other type of cell, where as adult cells can only be used for what they have already developed into. For example, an adult liver cell can only be used as a liver cell, whereas an embryonic stem cell can be developed into a heart, liver, nerve, kidney cell, etc, for countless research and to be able to replace a damaged cell in an ailing patient. Although the obtaining of embryonic stem cells is controversial and questions a person’s ethical beliefs, influenced by their political, religious, and moral values, using this type of cell will be more valuable and helpful to a scientist’s research. Once a decision of how embryonic cells can be legally obtained (whether through left over embryos from fertility treatments or from abortions), and in addition, federal funding is allowed to aid the process, researches will be able to focus on the real effort of searching for cures, using the more beneficial embryonic stem cells, rather than dealing with the ongoing political battle.

Food For Thought

Take a look at these logical fallacies I have found in researching the definition of a human. Some have based their decision on whether or not to support embryonic stem cell research depending on these assertions:

1) If a human being does not feel pain when he or she is destroyed, it is not immoral to destroy him or her.
2) A human embryo does not feel pain when he or she is destroyed.
3) Therefore, it is not immoral to destroy a human embryo.

1) If a human being has more cells, then that human being is more valuable.
2) An embryo has a very small number of cells.
3) Therefore, embryos are not very valuable.
These conclusions are in correct logical structure, however are not necessarily accurate.

Each individual defines a human being in his or her own way, basing the decision on personal, biased beliefs. As Greg Koukl writes in opposition of using human embryo’s for research: “By any objective, scientific standard, the embryo qualifies as a member of the human race. From the moment of conception the embryo is an individual. The zygote is distinct from mother, father, and other living things, having her own unique genetic fingerprint.” This raises the idea of when exactly an embryo technically becomes defined as a human. Koukl considers the genetic make-up as the defining factor of an embryo becoming a human which is developed at the time of contraception. Therefore, Koukl believes it is wrong to use an embryo for research, believing it is destroying human life. The decision of whether to support or oppose embryonic stem cell research is based primarily on a personal definition of a human being.

A Religious Debate

This startling graph from 2005 shows how much of an impact a person's religious views influence the decision of whether he or she agrees with stem cell research. Out of those who disagree with the research, over half hold their religious beliefs responsible for their decision. Many of the opponents believe that using embryos for scientific research is destroying human life. Catholics, for example, believe humans become “human” from the moment of contraception. As I have previously stated, the Pope believes using human embryo’s for stem cell research violates “the dignity of human life.”
As Lawton states in an interview, “The Bible talks about valuing life, but the Good Samaritan tries to go out of his way to alleviate suffering. What kind of determination do you make to determine which trumps which value?” Here, Lawton argues whether it is right to destroy human embryo’s, which can be considered “devaluing” life, or to use the embryo’s to search for cures for diseases which will help “alleviate suffering” for many humans. The interpretation of the Bible and a person’s beliefs are personal matters where Americans have the right to their own opinion. A person’s decision on whether to support embryonic stem cell research is mainly based on how he or she regards embryonic life.

A Political Battle

This political cartoon is a perfect representation of how the government influences the fate of stem cell research. The rear, flat tire on the ambulance represents the opposing view and veto of President Bush on a bill that would have loosened the restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. As the cartoon implies from the front tire, the US congress is in support of funding the research, yet the research is unable to continue on its “mission to save lives” because of lack of support from the rear wheel, aka the president. Stem cell research funding is dependant upon the support of the entire government; however some may argue that the government is making this issue into too much of a political debate rather than focusing on the scientific fight to cure diseases. The 2008 presidential candidates are making this issue a top discussion topic in their debates.