Can someone explain to me the debate on stem cell research?

Question

I don't know much about stem cell research, so i don't know what to think about it. Why are certain people opposed to it, and why are others for it? What is the argument that it's wrong? How is it beneficial?

Answer 1

Stem cells are cells that can be harvested from embryos.

For those who believe that human life begins at conception, to kill an embryo to harvest stem cells is the same as killing a child to harvest his kidneys.

For those who believe that human life begins at birth, there's no ethical dilema, but there's promise of the chance of new scientific breakthroughs.

Answer 2

People aren't against stem cell research in general, some are against where the cells are derived such as the killing of human embyros for the extraction of stem cells. Stem cells can be obtained from a variety of sources besides human embryos and some think that those sources should be used for research.

The creation and subsequent destruction of human embryos for use as lab rats is abhorrent. In fact embyonic cells may be much too "plastic" and malleable as to be useful. Either way, the science is unproven.

Some claim that these embryos are "medical waste" and will be thrown out anyway. Mengele and his peers also thought that of the Jews; "They're going to be killed anyway, why not get some good data from it."

These excess embryos should not exist in the first place since the decision of a fertility clinic to create multiple embryos in an IVF cycle is pure an ECONOMIC one.

Answer 3

President George Bush is opposed to only one thing: spending federal tax dollars on embryonic stem cell research. The procedure requires the destruction of an embryo...which is a human life.

Further, embryonic Stem cell research has been going on, and it shows no promise of any cures.

Adult stem cell research is ongoing. It shows promise.

Fetal stem cell research is ongoing. It shows promise.

Answer 4

Greetings. Main reason for the debate is that stem cell research is a search for a way for the body to cure itself of diseases that at present are super expensive to treat and usually not cured by the expensive care or special super expensive drugs. If stem cell research succeeds as it may well do, then the drug corporations that make the expensive and ineffectual drugs that many times kill the patients instead of cure them, would lose a huge amount of blood money and would donate less to great american hero's like our president who they donate to very heavily. Bush claims that stem cell research is against the bible? Bible was written more then a few days ago. Long before there was even a medical practice for it to be mentioned. Pharmacutical corps donate heavily to both political parties and expect protection for their substandard products for their support. Our government does exactly that. for the drug corps and against the people. Strangely some of the most forward looking stem cell research is now being done by North Korea and I understand they are making headway at it. Once again America is the Johnny come later then ever on a possible huge medical discovery. If stem cell research discovers the secrets of stem cells that are tranferred by a mother to her unborn fetus and gives them immunity to diseases that the mother is immune to. If you have a genetic predisposition to something like cancer in your family then by using stem cells from someone who was immune to cancer, you would become to. THat would mean a huge loss to the drug corps. no chemotheraphy, no radiation therphy, no early death from the drug cures. Bad for business, great for us humans. Bush claims that it is immoral to use stem cells because they are alive. at the same time he has caused the death of over 1 million humans in Iraq and thousands of our troops deaths as well. The stem cells that the fuss is about come from the afterbirth and the blood in the umbilical cord, that at present is simply thrown away at birth.

Answer 5

Stem cell research has been extremely beneficial through the years.. The debate comes over Federally funded embryonic stem cell research.. placenta cells have been proven to be effective, so embryonic research has been questioned.. there is plenty of research in the private sector..

Answer 6

Scientists believe that they can cure several diseases by using embryonic stem cells. In Europe scientists are free to use discarded eggs for testing. Scientist would like the option of using some of the eggs which are discarded in the in-vitro fertilization process where the prospective mother either conceives and doesn't needs them or otherwise decides that she doesn't need them.

Religeous groups and the President believe that the use of these eggs, even those that will be discarded, goes against moral principles.

Answer 7

There are two types of stem cells: adult cells and embryonic cells. Scientists almost unanimously agree that adult cells are helpful but embryonic cells show far more promise as embryos contain a universal broad spectrum antibody that fights off disease much more efficiently that adults do because the antibodies become more specialized and less effective as we age.


Pro-lifers are claiming that using adult cells is fine but using embryonic stem cells is destroying life, even though the cells in question are leftover cells that are discarded anyway.

Answer 8

In developed countries the use of drugs, probably with the exception of vaccines, antibiotics and antimicrobials, and a few others like gastric unti-ulcers , has not led to increase cures rates of serious and prevalent diseases, but to increased control of diseases and lower rate of related complications and even death. Such is the case, for example, of insulin that does not cure diabetes but controls it, anti-retroviral agents that do not cure AIDS but again controls the HIV virus, drugs that lead to secondary prevention of cardiovascular risk factors, such as anti-cholesterol drugs and anti-hypertensives, and to some extent drugs that treat cancer, with the exception of very chemosensitive tumors that can be cured by chemotherapy . In essence, these pharmaceuticals represent a serious advance in healthcare but also a certain disappointment and with clear limitations and often high financial costs. While a lot more needs to be done and found in pharmaceutical discovery, the field of Stem Cells and Regenerative Medicine has rapidly grown, often with more hype than solid facts. How much can we expect from Regenerative Medicine? How much public and private money should be spent? Is the controversy between the proponents of embryonic human stem cells and those who defend the use of adult-derived human stem cells (pluripotent, multi-potent or lineage-specific) limited and exclusive a matter of political and often religious opinion? Or can it be answered by scientific arguments in favor or against? I think regenerative medicine based on stem cells, either from adult human tissues or from early human embryos, will have an impact on many degenerative conditions and diseases, but will not cure cancer nor prevent most cardiovascular deaths: in other words it will not erradicate the two most common causes of death in the developed world. However, reserach on cancer "stem cells", the ones really responsible for the incurability of some 50% of human adult cancers, will probably help in finding new treatments for this serious type of disease. And once we learn how to replace dead heart tissue following a myocardial infarction, or dead brain tissue following a stroke or Alzheimers disease, or spinal chord injuries, we shall be able to help patients with these conditions to recover faster. Stem cell therapies will therefore not replace pharmaceutical drugs, but will be a very helpful complement, except perhaps in conditions like insulin-dependent or type I diabetes, where pancreatic beta-isles that produce insulin in the body could replace lifelong injections with pharmaceutical insulin. The answers will come from serious and creative scientific work, rather than hot but sterile political debates. We are finding multipotent human stem cells in adults and in virtually every tissue. These cells might be enough for treatment, and less prone to become malignant themselves than human embryonic cells. But the latter are younger, more likely to be pluripotential and flexible. An alternative, again not void of potential serious side effects or risk, like eventual malignant transformation, is to introduce 'stem cell genes' into suitable adult human immature cells.

Answer 9

Stem cells in labratory mice have shown promise. They can be harvested from embryos that will destroyed otherwise and used to develop organs and replace damages cells. Some people think it is going too far and "playing God"

Answer 10

Some religious folks hate science. They also think that stem cells are babies.