can u give me instances where stem cells have not helped ....?

Question

i need an argument against stem cells research for a debate...

Answer 1

Good responses so far...nearly all of the debate against stem cell research comes from moral and ethical arguments against using embryonic stem cells as the source of the cells. As they are harvested now, the embryo doesn't live to its potential (a new human being), so the same groups that are against abortion are, in general, against stem cell research. You may want to look for some arguments on the morality of the research on sites like that. It is also true that the actual research has not provided as much applicable knowledge as scientists and researchers have hoped so far, but that doesn't mean future research won't. In fact, it's the nature of science to learn from its mistakes, to see what happened when failures arise, and correct those mistakes in future research.

Answer 2

Because this research is still in a developing stage, we have a lot to learn. So some stem cell treatments have not resulted in improvement in spinal cord injuries.

However, I'm sorry for you that you have to argue against. If I were on the other side of the argument and you stated that there are cases where stem cells have not worked, I would ask you how many different chemical sources a pharmaceutical company has to try before it comes up with a new antibiotic. Development of a procedure, process or source takes time. We benefit from research that continues to try and try again.

Answer 3

It's harder to argue against embryonic stem cell therapy than it is to argue in favor of it. I'd recommend looking up your opponent's arguments, and prepare responses.

You could say that stem cells are unproven, because while they have shown promise in some areas, it has not yet been demonstrated that it is possible to regrow many organs from stem cells taken from embryos. The best response your opponent could have against this is that more research has to be done, and that certain treatments have worked.

There are some facts that could help either you, or your opponent. For example, you could say that it is not necessary to kill embryos for medical treatment, because some say this is immoral, or because you can get stem cells (that don't work as well) from other sources. Your opponent, however, could argue in favor of stem cell therapy, saying that it is not necessary to kill embryos because there are methods that remove stem cells without killing the embryo. But both sides should keep in mind that these embryos aren't what people usually think of when they think about a baby, or even a fetus. They are balls of undifferentiated cells, about the size of a grain of sand. People can argue that it is ethical to tamper with or kill such an organism to help fully grown people.

Answer 4

Ecolink has it right...I just want to add that scientists are looking into the role stem cells have in the development of cancer. Some experimentation has shown a connection. Obviously we do not want to insert stem cells to repair some tissue and trigger tumor formation. We need to know how to turn them on AND off. Scientific American recently published an issue about this...Check out their website www.sciam.com Good luck!