Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Summer
So far my summer is showing mixed results. I finally have a job, and a good one at that, I'm hanging out with all my friends, and doing what I want and not worrying about school. (To be completed at a later date)
Monday, December 3, 2007
The Final Solution...or at least a proposed solution to this issue.
In a world in which embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) is a controversial subject, there are those who are in favor of it and those who are against it. The two sides in this issue can be defined biasedly as evil baby killers and those who are an obstacle to saving the lives of those who suffer. I will analyze this issue by eliminating the bias in these definitions and presenting a clear interpretation of both arguments.
When analyzing this issue, I need to answer the following questions: Why does each side believe the way they do? What is each side arguing for? How do they come to different conclusions? How do both sides contradict themselves?
First I will take a look at the "evil baby killers" aka those who are in favor of ESCR. The reasons someone on this side will give you if you ask them why they support it will be biased, but they must still be taken into account if you want to understand their argument. The supporters of ESCR believe that the potential benefits that ESCR has to offer in terms of treatments and cures for afflictions outweigh the costs involved. Some feel justified because they do not consider an embryo a human child while others justify their support of ESCR because while one life may be lost, thousands others may be improved and the cures to many afflictions may be discovered (many of my friends who support ESCR have given this response).
Those who are against ESCR often cite moral reasons. Many, who come from religious backgrounds, believe that human life begins at conception. They see the destruction of an embryo as murder as it denies a human of the chance at life. Others cite medical reasons for their opposition. It has been shown that embryonic stem cells develop chromosomal mutations that cause cancer. Also embryonic stem cells have yet to produce viable treatment options for humans. They would rather have more money and time devoted to adult stem cell research (ASCR), which are already used in treatments today. I asked some of my friends who are against ESCR why they feel the way they do, and one of them gave an extreme yet viable reason. She feels that if ESCR is allowed to continue that scientists will begin to push the envelope as to what is acceptable to do. If destroying an embryo is acceptable, then it will only be a matter of time before it is acceptable to destroy fetuses for stem cells. Her logic is flawed, but it is a possible, if extreme, scenario.
Each side, however, contradicts itself. ESCR has yet to produce viable treatments so its supporters are relying on it to do so, even though it may not in the future. We could wait years and devote millions of dollars to treatments that may never be perfected or be as effective as we hoped. Those who oppose it would feel differently if they or a loved one were very ill and could only be saved by a treatment involving embryonic stem cells, or if a miraculous cure were derived from embryonic stem cells. They also ignore the fact that new processes are being developed to harvest stem cells without destroying a fertilized embryo.
In regards to this issue, both sides are really fighting for the same thing: to save lives, but they differ in the way they go about it. The pro-ESCR group seeks to save the lives of the sick and afflicted by developing new treatments and cures. The anti-ESCR group seeks to save the lives of cells that will eventually grow into a child. Since both sides are fighting for the same thing, a solution is possible. I believe that both sides will be willing to accept continued ESCR if the government monitored the industry to ensure safety and quality. It just struck me, however, that this is more of a compromise, a lose-lose situation, than a solution. Pro-ESCRers won't be completely satisfied because they would have to answer to the government, while the anti crowd would lose because ESCR would be allowed to continue. I say we allow it to continue and see what comes of it. If nothing good comes of it, ESCR will probably fade away. If the reverse turns out to be true, then we end up with many wonderful cures and treatments to alleviate the suffering in the world. Only time and research will tell.
When analyzing this issue, I need to answer the following questions: Why does each side believe the way they do? What is each side arguing for? How do they come to different conclusions? How do both sides contradict themselves?
First I will take a look at the "evil baby killers" aka those who are in favor of ESCR. The reasons someone on this side will give you if you ask them why they support it will be biased, but they must still be taken into account if you want to understand their argument. The supporters of ESCR believe that the potential benefits that ESCR has to offer in terms of treatments and cures for afflictions outweigh the costs involved. Some feel justified because they do not consider an embryo a human child while others justify their support of ESCR because while one life may be lost, thousands others may be improved and the cures to many afflictions may be discovered (many of my friends who support ESCR have given this response).
Those who are against ESCR often cite moral reasons. Many, who come from religious backgrounds, believe that human life begins at conception. They see the destruction of an embryo as murder as it denies a human of the chance at life. Others cite medical reasons for their opposition. It has been shown that embryonic stem cells develop chromosomal mutations that cause cancer. Also embryonic stem cells have yet to produce viable treatment options for humans. They would rather have more money and time devoted to adult stem cell research (ASCR), which are already used in treatments today. I asked some of my friends who are against ESCR why they feel the way they do, and one of them gave an extreme yet viable reason. She feels that if ESCR is allowed to continue that scientists will begin to push the envelope as to what is acceptable to do. If destroying an embryo is acceptable, then it will only be a matter of time before it is acceptable to destroy fetuses for stem cells. Her logic is flawed, but it is a possible, if extreme, scenario.
Each side, however, contradicts itself. ESCR has yet to produce viable treatments so its supporters are relying on it to do so, even though it may not in the future. We could wait years and devote millions of dollars to treatments that may never be perfected or be as effective as we hoped. Those who oppose it would feel differently if they or a loved one were very ill and could only be saved by a treatment involving embryonic stem cells, or if a miraculous cure were derived from embryonic stem cells. They also ignore the fact that new processes are being developed to harvest stem cells without destroying a fertilized embryo.
In regards to this issue, both sides are really fighting for the same thing: to save lives, but they differ in the way they go about it. The pro-ESCR group seeks to save the lives of the sick and afflicted by developing new treatments and cures. The anti-ESCR group seeks to save the lives of cells that will eventually grow into a child. Since both sides are fighting for the same thing, a solution is possible. I believe that both sides will be willing to accept continued ESCR if the government monitored the industry to ensure safety and quality. It just struck me, however, that this is more of a compromise, a lose-lose situation, than a solution. Pro-ESCRers won't be completely satisfied because they would have to answer to the government, while the anti crowd would lose because ESCR would be allowed to continue. I say we allow it to continue and see what comes of it. If nothing good comes of it, ESCR will probably fade away. If the reverse turns out to be true, then we end up with many wonderful cures and treatments to alleviate the suffering in the world. Only time and research will tell.
Sunday, December 2, 2007
Breaking it Down
After thinking long and hard about my issue, I have concluded that its ethos can be summed up in these questions: At what point does human life begin and are the potential benefits of embryonic stem cell research outweigh the risks and sacrifices involved?
Major players:
1. Those who are against embryonic stem cell research
~Those who oppose it for moral reasons
*Life begins at conception and all life is sacred.
*harvesting stem cells requires the destruction of the embryo, which is a human being (by way of the above reasoning) and harvesting the cells is the same as murder.
~Those who oppose it for medical reasons
*Embryonic stem cell research has yet to produce promising results for human treatments
*If stored for too long, embryonic stem cells develop genetic mutations that can cause cancer.
2. Those who are in favor of embryonic stem cell research
~those who believe that the potential medical benefits and cures derived from embryonic stem cells outweigh the sacrifices that have to be made.
~Embryonic stem cell research should be allowed to continue, but under government supervision.
~Embryos aren't considered human so it doesn't matter if they are destroyed.
Backgrounds:
Group 1 is split along religious and medical lines. Those who oppose embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) for moral reasons believe that life begins the moment the egg is fertilized. They view the destruction of a fertilized embryo for the purpose of harvesting its stem cells as murder. Members of this faction also cite religion as the base of their argument: God created all life and all life is sacred. Members of this side also oppose ECSR for medical reasons. Despite years of research, ESCR has yet to produce effective treatments suitable for use on humans. As mentioned above, ESC can develop carcinogenic mutations if they go unused for too long. These individuals promote further funding of adult stem cell research (ASCR), which are already used in treatments today, to find cures.
Members of group 2 are in favor of continued ESCR, but their reasons differ. Some may promote ESCR because of its potential new treatments for diseases and that the costs are justified. Others may feel justified because they do not believe an embryo to be a human being and its destruction is not a sin. There are also those who support it but feel that the government should supervise the research to ensure public safety.
Social Climate:
This issue arises in a world of infirmity in which some diseases are incurable with the medicine at our disposal. It also arises in an age when people are questioning what it means to be a human and when life really begins. Scientists searching for cures must confront these questions as they delve into new possibilities for treatments and cures. The issue of ESCR partially goes along with the issue of abortion in asking the question of when human life really begins. Does it begin at conception, as many conservative and religious groups believe, or after birth?
Major players:
1. Those who are against embryonic stem cell research
~Those who oppose it for moral reasons
*Life begins at conception and all life is sacred.
*harvesting stem cells requires the destruction of the embryo, which is a human being (by way of the above reasoning) and harvesting the cells is the same as murder.
~Those who oppose it for medical reasons
*Embryonic stem cell research has yet to produce promising results for human treatments
*If stored for too long, embryonic stem cells develop genetic mutations that can cause cancer.
2. Those who are in favor of embryonic stem cell research
~those who believe that the potential medical benefits and cures derived from embryonic stem cells outweigh the sacrifices that have to be made.
~Embryonic stem cell research should be allowed to continue, but under government supervision.
~Embryos aren't considered human so it doesn't matter if they are destroyed.
Backgrounds:
Group 1 is split along religious and medical lines. Those who oppose embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) for moral reasons believe that life begins the moment the egg is fertilized. They view the destruction of a fertilized embryo for the purpose of harvesting its stem cells as murder. Members of this faction also cite religion as the base of their argument: God created all life and all life is sacred. Members of this side also oppose ECSR for medical reasons. Despite years of research, ESCR has yet to produce effective treatments suitable for use on humans. As mentioned above, ESC can develop carcinogenic mutations if they go unused for too long. These individuals promote further funding of adult stem cell research (ASCR), which are already used in treatments today, to find cures.
Members of group 2 are in favor of continued ESCR, but their reasons differ. Some may promote ESCR because of its potential new treatments for diseases and that the costs are justified. Others may feel justified because they do not believe an embryo to be a human being and its destruction is not a sin. There are also those who support it but feel that the government should supervise the research to ensure public safety.
Social Climate:
This issue arises in a world of infirmity in which some diseases are incurable with the medicine at our disposal. It also arises in an age when people are questioning what it means to be a human and when life really begins. Scientists searching for cures must confront these questions as they delve into new possibilities for treatments and cures. The issue of ESCR partially goes along with the issue of abortion in asking the question of when human life really begins. Does it begin at conception, as many conservative and religious groups believe, or after birth?
Saturday, December 1, 2007
Things I didn't know I didn't know I didn't know I didn't know @_@
So after some more research, I have complied a list of things I didn't know I didn't know about embryonic stem cell research.
~Scientists at Harvard have discovered a way to harvest embryonic stem cells without destroying a fertilized embryo. This new process involves fusing blank stem cells, egg cells with their nucleus removed, with adult skin cells to create the blastocyst from which the stem cells are derived. Researchers believe that it will take up to ten years to perfect this process. (From http://usliberals.about.com/)
This progress seems to offer a compromise between the two sides in the embryonic stem cell research debate. The process yields undifferentiated stem cells (embryonic stem cells) without destroying a fertilized embryo.
~Embryonic stem cell research is legal in the US, just not government funded. (see above for source)
~Adult stem cells are currently the only kind of stem cell used to treat diseases today, usually in bone marrow transplants. (from the NIH website)
~Some anti-embryonic stem cell groups believe that even a sperm and an egg, as separate things, are complete people. (from religioustolerance.org)
~Embryonic stem cells that have been stored over a long period of time have been known to develop the kind of chromosomal abnormalities that can create cancer cells. (from allaboutpopularissues.org)
~Scientists at Harvard have discovered a way to harvest embryonic stem cells without destroying a fertilized embryo. This new process involves fusing blank stem cells, egg cells with their nucleus removed, with adult skin cells to create the blastocyst from which the stem cells are derived. Researchers believe that it will take up to ten years to perfect this process. (From http://usliberals.about.com/)
This progress seems to offer a compromise between the two sides in the embryonic stem cell research debate. The process yields undifferentiated stem cells (embryonic stem cells) without destroying a fertilized embryo.
~Embryonic stem cell research is legal in the US, just not government funded. (see above for source)
~Adult stem cells are currently the only kind of stem cell used to treat diseases today, usually in bone marrow transplants. (from the NIH website)
~Some anti-embryonic stem cell groups believe that even a sperm and an egg, as separate things, are complete people. (from religioustolerance.org)
~Embryonic stem cells that have been stored over a long period of time have been known to develop the kind of chromosomal abnormalities that can create cancer cells. (from allaboutpopularissues.org)
Thinking Critically
We were told to think long and hard about what we're trying to say about our topic. And after wracking my brain, what I am trying to say about embryonic stem cell research is this: Embryonic stem cell research should not be looked on as this evil thing that the pro-lifers are making it out to be. I'll admit that harvesting stem cells from an embryo results in its destruction, but the stem cells gathered have to potential to save the lives of many people. That said, we cannot go around stealing embryos like their going out of style, but fertility clinics have scores of leftover embryos that they don't need and won't use. Why not put them to good use instead of having them thrown out? Another interesting question I would like to ask is this: What makes a human life more valuable than the life of any other animal? In our hubris we have elevated ourselves above the rest of nature. We do not think twice about killing say a cow or a deer (unless you're a vegetarian or an animal rights activist), but when we talk about a human life being taken, we get all offended. Just as we kill off a herd of cows or a flock of chickens to feed humans, we should see the destruction of a mass of cells in order to develop new medical treatments as a sacrifice necessary to save lives.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Links...
OK, so this is VERY late.... >_<
http://stemcells.nih.gov/
This website offers the government's view on stem cell research. It contains useful info on the cells themselves, their uses, ethical issues, and the US government's policy on stem cell research. Being a government-run website means that it will be biased in the government's favor and promote adherance to the government's ideals and policies. http://www.religioustolerance.org/res_stem.htm This website offers the same general information as the NIH's site. This site, however, throws in the religious opinions, introducing faith-based bias, implying that those opinions are not based on concrete evidence. It's always fun to listen/read religious zealots though because I find them quite amusing.
http://www.allaboutpopularissues.org/pros-and-cons-of-stem-cell-research.htm
I used this website when I was writing a research paper last year. It explains what stem cells are, where they come from, and the differences between the different types of stem cells. This website does seem to be against the use of embryonic stem cell research as "funds devoted to embryonic stem cell research are funds being taken away from the other two more promising and less controversial types of stem cell research," the other two types being adult stem cells and umbilical stem cells.
http://usliberals.about.com/od/stemcellresearch/i/StemCell1.htm
As the URL implies, this is a liberal website, and so favors stem cell research. The site gives some history of embryonic stem cell legislation, arguments for and against embryonic stem cell research, and an alternate method of harvesting stem cells that doesn't involve killing a fertilized embryo.
http://www.stemcellresearchfacts.com/index.html
This website contains the basic info on stem cells, both adult and embryonic. It is obvious that this site is against embryonic stem cell research as it sports an article entitled "How Embryonic Stem Cell Science Exploits Women." This bias has to be taken into account when analyzing information on the site.
http://stemcells.nih.gov/
This website offers the government's view on stem cell research. It contains useful info on the cells themselves, their uses, ethical issues, and the US government's policy on stem cell research. Being a government-run website means that it will be biased in the government's favor and promote adherance to the government's ideals and policies. http://www.religioustolerance.org/res_stem.htm This website offers the same general information as the NIH's site. This site, however, throws in the religious opinions, introducing faith-based bias, implying that those opinions are not based on concrete evidence. It's always fun to listen/read religious zealots though because I find them quite amusing.
http://www.allaboutpopularissues.org/pros-and-cons-of-stem-cell-research.htm
I used this website when I was writing a research paper last year. It explains what stem cells are, where they come from, and the differences between the different types of stem cells. This website does seem to be against the use of embryonic stem cell research as "funds devoted to embryonic stem cell research are funds being taken away from the other two more promising and less controversial types of stem cell research," the other two types being adult stem cells and umbilical stem cells.
http://usliberals.about.com/od/stemcellresearch/i/StemCell1.htm
As the URL implies, this is a liberal website, and so favors stem cell research. The site gives some history of embryonic stem cell legislation, arguments for and against embryonic stem cell research, and an alternate method of harvesting stem cells that doesn't involve killing a fertilized embryo.
http://www.stemcellresearchfacts.com/index.html
This website contains the basic info on stem cells, both adult and embryonic. It is obvious that this site is against embryonic stem cell research as it sports an article entitled "How Embryonic Stem Cell Science Exploits Women." This bias has to be taken into account when analyzing information on the site.
Monday, November 5, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
