Stem cell research could save lives, but brings up ethical questions. Should it be more tightly regulated?
Your Comments, Thoughts, Questions, Ideas
Science Buzz is supported by the National Science Foundation.Copyright © Science Museum of Minnesota, 2004-2010, except where noted.
you just proved my point bryan....no progress for embryonic stem cell research...so why not continue with adult stem cells instead of wasting time and money that we can ALL agree we are in dire need of right now
I am assuming that you are the same Anonymous that posted above. We're a friendly bunch that likes debating the finer point of science, join us if you feel like.
OK, more to the point...I don't think I proved your point actually. I didn't realize that was the point you were even making since you didn't distinguish between adult and embryonic stem cells in the previous comment that I replied to. But, I get what you are saying now.
Adult stem cells aside, I think we absolutely should continue research into embryonic stems cells along with adult stem cells. The history of scientific research is full of seemingly fruitless pursuits that have turned out to yield significant breakthroughs after years and years of failure. Thomas Edison's persistence took a nearly 50 year old idea that many considered a waste of time and resulted in a practical incandescent electrical bulb that well all use today.
Does that mean we should follow every dead-end idea, hammering on it until we make it work? No. We should absolutely be judicious in how we apply funding. However, the promise of embryonic stem cells is so great. Treatments that arise out of embryonic stem cell research could alleviate problems in areas where no other therapy currently exists. That's why I think we should continue our research their despite the ethical issues and the seemingly long time frame required for research breakthroughs.
scientists have been doing research on stem cells for years on end. and they arent any closer to a result or cure for any kind of disease than they were years ago. they have made no progress whatsoever, and frankly reading some of these peoples excuses for continuing stem cell research are disgusting, and totally untrue and are based soley on hypothesis and not credible evidence. there is no scientific evidence that stem cell research has a cure for anything. thats science, not even the bible or anything religious, thats science.
From what i've seen i honestly don't think the anonymous character should even act like they are remotely smart enough to answer such a complex question, considering the fact that they can't even use correct punctuation nor correct grammar when responding to the gentleman below. At least he argues a good point and doesn't put only his belief system into his answer, and not to mention he seems at least some what intelligent. :D
You might consider reading the National Institutes of Health's website on Stem Cell research. Especially consider the, "Can they cure diseases" page. You are correct that human embryonic stem cells are only just now starting to show their potential to cure diseases.
However, adult stem cells have been used in bone marrow transplants for more than 40 years. Newer uses for adult stem cells are in testing now.
So your claim of "no progress whatsoever" is quite false.
stemm cell research could help the blind ,the deaf and make it so that people dont have to suffer when they have and incurable disease. we could uncover so many answers and save many lives. those incurable disease may be able to cease with the discoveries laying before us.
Overpopulation is something that is very unintelligent to be backing up with the con of Stem Cell Research. I believe it is even more unintelligent for the cure to the most bewildering diseases to be sitting right there and yet we hold back because of where it comes from. People just have different views on this topic.
Many of these people making comments about stem cell research know nothing about it, it is wrong to make judgements when not understanding the whole situation. Stem cell research could be a good way forward and should be surrported 100%.
I think you're right that people shouldn't make up their minds on a subject before they are truly informed about it... but it's good that people are at least talking—sharing their concerns as well as information— don't you think?
But if all we say is "stem cell research is evil, we should never do it," or "stem cell research should be supported 100%," I'm not sure we're making people any more knowledgeable on the issue.
What comments here do you think are groundless? Specifically, why should people be less concerned about stem cell research (or why might they even be enthusiastic about it)? This is a good opportunity to help people learn!
Stem Cell research is WRONG!! Why kill an Embyo just to save a older person. They are going to die soon anyway. Think about it?
That is sort of the tricky, sticky dilemma of stem cell research. But I think there are other ways to frame the subject that are worthwhile thinking about.
Stem cell research, potentially, could save the lives of many older persons, and might lead to treatments that don't necessarily require a one embryo to one patient trade off.
The embryos themselves, also, might not be dying, but most of them aren't exactly on the road to a full life either—far more embryos are created for fertility treatment than are ever actually used. So they just sit there, frozen. And then they're thrown out. (So, yeah, I take it back—they do die after all.) Doesn't that seem like a pretty great waste of life, when embryos that wouldn't survive anyway might be used to help people live?
And when you say that they're going to "die soon anyway," do you mean that they're going to die because they aren't being treated? Like "why would we waste anti-biotics on a person with strep throat, when the strep could just kill them soon anyway?" Or do you mean that we shouldn't sacrifice potential young lives to save older lives? Leaving be the idea that a life doesn't lose its value with age, it's not just old people that could benefit from stem cell research. Far from it.
I remember hearing, a while back, someone make an analogy regarding this debate. And this is sort of bizarre and extreme, but, still...
You're in a burning house with an eight year old kid, and a tray of embryos. You can try to save the embryos, or you can try to save the kid, but you can't do both before it's too late. Do you value the potential life of the embryos over the existing life of the kid? (And one might add that, should you take the embryos out of the house, you have to dump them in the trash on the curb.)
EMBRYONIC stem cell research should be more tightly regulated. ADULT stem cell research is perfectly ethical, as no human life is destroyed in the process. Embryonic stem cells are also flawed as:
- The body's immune system tends to reject them
- They cause tumors
- It is difficult to get them to fully specialize.
However adult stem cells are ALREADY being used to treat human beings. No one has been treated using embryonic stem cells, and personally I think we're wasting time and money on unethical research, while a perfectly good alternate exists.
Saving lives doesn't just mean keep people "alive", it means giving them the life they deserve. My father has both Multiple Sclerosis and Parkinson's. He has been in a wheelchair the past 10 years of his life and there is no hope. Although he is very sick, he most likely will not die for a very long time, he will just live in agony.
Stem cell research gives him the chance to have a life worth living. I do not expect a cure to be found in his life time but don't allow this to happen to anyone in the future. Those living with incurable diseases have lives equal to those of anyone healthy, we should help.
adult stem cells arent capable to turn into the tissues needed to be repaired they simply can not adapt to everyones specific needs. and what are we killing when u say were killing babies and humans. i dont know about you but to me a human has to have a brain and body. its all tissues when they extract them out. and why not use the waste. i mean they going into the trash would u let someone one throw a life away? your allowing people to toss away others second chance our society is suppost to be baised on democracy so why is it we allow others religous and ethical conserns interfear with our overal development in science. we need to let democracy take its course.
If I have to kill and unborn child _a human being a life in order to have stem cell research no even though the law says we can kill our children before they enter the world that does not make it right. Adult stem cell sounds like the way to go.
My best friend called me last night practically in tears. She told me that John McCain wanted to obliterate stem cell research and was proudly announcing it at the republican national convention. She's 16 and has been living with type 1 diabetes for several years now. I've heard the way she talks about her life and it is very clear to me that she is terrified of the complications associated with the disease. "How can he do this?" she asked me. "That's my cure, that's going to save my life someday. How can they choose the life of an embrio created for the sole purpose of stem cell research who otherwise wouldn't have existed, over me, someone who has a life and a family and friends." I could barely answer her question, and it broke my heart to see how frustrated she was and how alone she felt. John McCain says that America is his priority, over politics, and party lines, America comes first. But I have something to say to that. America is its people, and if you want to take care of America, you'd better start with its people first. And start by choosing to care for the millions of americans, the millions of people, of individuals struggling with diabetes, cancer, heart disease, and other life threatening diseases. Choose them. Choose my best friend.
I am 31 years old and at 27, due to being born prematurely by 3 months at 1lb 6 oz, it was discovered that I need a double lung transplant. I had to leave my great paying job and go on Social Security. Three years ago I took a part time job with an atty who pays me $ 5.55 an hr. Yes that is illegal but it's something in my pocket and he lets me come and go for dr appts, if I am sick, etc. In 14 days I graduate with my second associate's degree. I would continue going to college as it is something to do, but am out of state funded financial aid and there is nothing out there otherwise, believe it or not- I have searched high and low. Because of this I can't keep going.
I also have diabetes, which has caused kidney damage and am bi polar.
What about my life?
I want to live and I want to be a productive member of society. I don't want to live on the Government. Because of my good paying job I get a good amount of social security- over a grand- a month but don't qualify for any other help because of that amount.
I believed in abortion until at 20 I gave birth at 4 months and my son legally lived for 3.5 hours. That made me have the choice that I would not choose that for myself but would not stop another from living the life they want, especially if a product of rape, financial, emotional, etc issues.
I have done alot of research on regenerating organs. Hence if there could be a way to save my life, have a new set of my own lungs, without thousands of dollars of monthly medication, to live with another's organ ( Which took me 2 years to truly decide I would accept) , why prevent people in my situation?
One person here outlined the life as having personality, awareness, etc.
If someone has unwanted embryos from fertility treatment, or the product of abortion ( as I am sure some of the means do not produce a whole product- sorry if I am wrong on this) that will save me, that will give me my life back, please don't deny me this.
yeahhh idk what to do... maybe you should go post an ad in the newspaper 5and ask for some unwanted embryos or the abortion... even though that is kind of weird, nothing personal or anything. i mena i know you want your life back and everything but why would you want someone elses life who wastnt meant to be.
nothing personal, just mah thoughts
Just wanted to say that I think that stem cell research is important. I think we should let them research as much as they want as long as they do not use embrios. I think scientists should focus on the umbilical cord cell research that would benefit everyone and it would not be such an issue.
many think stem cell research is ethically immoral, but what about people who are suffering from diseases such as leukemia, diabetes, or other life threatening problems?
would it be immoral to leave those to die? or would it be better to learn what we can from embryonic researches of babies of people who wants abortions and are willing to donate that much knowledge to the researchers?
am i saying it to be reasonable to kill the babies in mothers wombs to obtain useful informations and tools? no. and i totally agree with liza on the bottom of the page, that embryonic stem cell researches should and must not be an excuse to abortions because human lives are valuable. then again isnt that why are we trying to do stem cell researches???
Embryonic stem cell research does not involve abortion.
Right now it does, however, require the destruction of a human embryo--an embryo created in a lab either for that purpose or for fertility treatment.
I just want to make sure that we're debating the right issues here. :)
Embryotic Stem Cell Research is wrong. It's used as an excuse for abortion way to often and even more lives are thrown away because of it.
You're certainly entitled to the opinion that embryonic stem cell research is wrong.
However, it is not used as an excuse for abortion.
Embryonic stem cells are extracted from embryos. Typically, these are embryos created in fertility clinics. When a woman undergoes in-vitro fertilization (IVF), she's given medication that causes her to produce as many as 24 mature eggs. These are removed and fertilized, creating embryos. Two to five days after fertilization, a few embryos are implanted in the hope that one or two will develop into a fetus or two. The rest are usually frozen for future use by the couple, or discarded.
At this stage, the embryos are only four to ten cells. They have no brain, central nervous system, mouth, heart, lungs, or internal organs. They can't sense anything. The cells are identical and undifferentiated. And stem cells can only be extracted from these very early embryos--long before a woman knows she's pregnant (typically 2+ weeks after conception), and way before an abortion can be obtained (usually between 6 and 12 weeks after conception).
no
Stem cell research will only give people a good reason to abort their babies, right now if a woman aborts her child she knows it's for selfish reasons. If we legalize stem cell research more innocent children will be killed. The supposable parents of these babies will be able to say that the aborted their baby "for the good of society".
"Right now if a woman aborts her child she knows it's for selfish reasons."
Let's be real careful before we say things like this.
Hmmmm.
Most embryonic stem cells are harvested from embryos at the blastocyst stage of development: they're less than three days old, and they consist of four to ten cells.
No one could possibly know that she is pregnant three days after conception. So the potential harvest of stem cells could never be a "good reason" to abort a fetus.
Yes
Stem cell research can combat death, and even make the lives of people who were born abnormal live a normal life. It can make a child that is blind see again, or a person who is paralyzed walk again. The question about stem cell research is: "Who should die? Us or them(embryos)." The answer is obviously them. Here's an example, a student who was raised with a perfect life and had thousands of dollars paid to his/her education. And spent countless hours developing into a very needed/important profession such as a scientist that may discover the cure of cancer. And then this person was diagnosed with a disease like leukemia (taking example from Patrizia Durante) and had only six months to live. This person can either just die out and not be remembered, or they can be cured with stem cells. While there's people out there in the world who just get an abortion and and could not atleast give stem cells because of people who think it's morally wrong to make clones and such.
Even so there already has been new research that one stem cell can be plucked off the embyro while it still grows out to be perfectly fine, while that stem cell keeps dividing.
Patrizia Durante used umbillical cord blood stem cells for her leukemia cure. Stem cells from cord blood, bone marrow, and several organs are considered "adult" stem cells because they come from fully developed tissue. The cures for leukemia and many other diseases that we hear about in the news are all from adult stem cells, not from embryonic stem cells. Adult stem cells are not ethically problematic because no one is harmed, and we do not have to choose between "us or them."
The embryo, of course, might also be the brainy doctor who would have found the cure for HIV if allowed to live, but didn't get the chance for the rather random reason that he/she was younger and smaller than other humans.
Adult stem cell research is almost universally supported and it's also federally funded. Such research has been going on for decades and, as you say, has produced some tremendously exciting results.
Embryonic stem cell research, on the other hand, is hotly contested and relies almost entirely on private funding. It lags decades behind adult stem cell research.
I think it's misleading to suggest that embryonic stem cell research is a blind alley, a boondoggle, or will never yield results. Given the same amount of time and funding, embryonic stem cell research will likely also yield dramatic results.
I think your argument about "the brainy doctor who would have found the cure for HIV if allowed to live" is also flawed. I often also hear people similar things like, "What if Beetholven had never been born?" First, reasoning like this suggests that people's accomplishments are preordained, and I don't believe that's true. Second, while I would certainly not wish for a world without Beetholven, I can only say that because I've experienced the music. You can't mourn or miss what you haven't experienced in any way. Third, I think that focused research eventually produces results. We will someday find a good treatment or a cure for HIV, and it won't be dependent on any particular personality. And fourth, my knee-jerk reaction is to ask, "What about kids who die of malaria or malnourishment or totally preventable water-bourne or childhood diseases? Do you care about their opportunities and potential as much as you do the potential of a ball of undifferentiated human cells, with no ability to sense or remember?"
I do find your argument about not having to choose between kinds of human potential compelling. The refusal to elevate any sort of human life over any other kind of human life has a certain dignity to it.
Except that we have this problem of excess embryos created through treatments for infertility. All the embryos that aren't implanted (many!) are eventually destroyed, either purposefully or by accident. And since they're going to "die" anyway, isn't it worth thinking about how those cells could benefit mankind?
Thats crazy I was like YES lets have stem cell research and save lives... but now, i think, overpopulation, and everything does happen for a reason... maybe we shouldn't mess with that...
oh yeah YES it should be outlawed
stem cell research will lead to saving lives, some say great, not me! Saving more lives will only lead to gross overpopulation & the advancing destruction of our planet being excelerated by the excess drain on the planets resources. Before you jump all over me, my wife has cancer & my mother has MS & I do not believe that a cure will help the human race in the long run. Although I love them both very much & would do anything for them I would not want my support to harm the future of my grandchildren or their grandchildren
I am doing an extensive research paper on stem cell research. I am pro stem cell research. Does anyone have any links or help for me . It would be much appreciated!
I am writing a research paper on stem cells. I was a hundred and 20 percent for it until i got to the bottom of this page. In this i found a comment that was saying if stem cells worked we would have an overpopulation of people in the future. While sounding crazy this is very true. I was already torn between the whole Pro-Life and Pro- Choice issues but now i have a new argument. This is a very good point. However i still think i am for stem cells because they could save lives. Hopefully by the time we get to the point of severe overpopulation we will have a solution.
no way
Stem cell research should be limited. Why? BECAUSE IT SAVES LIVES! Now I may initially sound crazy, but bear with me. In a world where overpopulation imminently lies in America's future, saving lives is the last thing the American government should do. By putting massive restrictions on Stem cell research, an indirect policy of population control would be facilitated. I agree that stem cell research would be moral if we were saving lives, but thats not the goal. Making the world a better place is our goal. Overpopulation is antithetical to that goal. The united states should get a hold on population control now before it gets out of hand. And if that means that the government hides behind the lame blanket argument "embryos are human beings," then so be it.
We pray for research scientists to hurry up their work. We have a young friend who is tetraplegic due to an accident and we are very anxious for him to get better. Thanks to stem cell research our friend has hope. For that alone, we thank you .
I think stem cell research is pretty tightly regulated already.
I think we talk a lot about how all human life is precious, and how we should value the whole spectrum of human experience, when there's no potential cure for a given condition. But once a line of research starts to show promise, much less results, there's a line of people trying to get into clinical trials.
Which just makes sense to me. Were I facing the prospect of a long, frustrating, painful, debilitating, and ultimately fatal disease, I'd want to go out fighting, and using every weapon in our arsenal--stem cells included.
I don't think it's ethical to fertilize eggs to create embryos that you're ultimately going to destroy in pursuit of stem cells. But there's a vast and largely untapped supply of already-created embryos out there, as the previous poster wrote, that are never going to sense anything, much less become people. And it wouldn't even take many of those to create the stem cell lines that scientists need.
This site does a pretty good job of explaining why scientists are interested in stem cells, what the issues are on both sides of the moral arguments, and what the current restrictions are.
For my money, I think that fertility clinics that create huge numbers of embryos that will never be implanted are irresponsible. But, that said, those millions of embryos are never going to become people. And they have no capacity to think, or sense, or feel. So if we can agree on guidelines for how they should be treated, respectfully somehow, then I think it's fine to create new stem cell lines from them.
I think nature does a magnificent job at regulating itself. The more people goof around with nature, the more problems we create. Let nature do what it has always done so well.
I have a good friend who is suffering from early onset Parkinson's. The idea that she should wait in vain for better treatment to protect eggs which are not now and will never be a person is ridiculous. If these eggs are not used for research, they will be discarded.
I hardly see why... aborted embryos that are not used for stem cell research are simply sterilized and disposed of at a fertility clinic.
I recently wrote a paper on stem cells and had to do extensive research on them. Firstly, They are proven and soon will be the most important field of medicine. Secondly, adult stem cells are as useful as embryonic stem cells. Thirdly, The benefits of stem cells outway their cons of stem cellls a milklionfold. The loss of one embryo can offset the gain of a hundred lives.
Adult stem cell research is important. I think it is a sad state of afairs when we do research on embryos , however.
Stem cell research is good, but it has its problems.
I wouldn't like to be told by the nurses that they're just gonna let me die if I was in coma.
if you were in a coma how could you you hear what the nurses are saying?
Well, that's your choice, and your family and society should respect it. The embryos we're talking about here are not capable of choice. They aren't sentient beings. They have no awareness. No thought. No personality. They can't feel pain. They are in the earliest phase of development. They are clusters of about 100 cells.
They are potential people, but, to my mind, not people yet.
Choices for these embryos have to be made by their parents. How would you feel if you WANTED to donate your "leftover" embryos to help cure, say, your father's Alzheimer's disease, but you weren't given the option?
And further, these embryos ARE going to die. Normally they're disposed of by the clinic. This way, at least they don't die in vain.
it should be more tightly regulated because it is dealing with genetic material and genetic information. these two things can be put to poor use if they are not tightly regulated. we saw this in south korea. BUT does this mean that it should not be funded? of course not. Stem cell research is an innovative tool and is a moral field of study. By the way, there seems to be a positive correlation between legal abortion and a lower crime rate and a healthier country.