Arguments Against Stem Cell Research
Why reject it? Stem cell research has been in the media since the day it was discovered. With the potential to cure many patients who are otherwise bound to die of diseases that are currently incurable, of course stem cells would be a big deal. But there are people who believe that stem cell research is a very inhuman and immoral act only because embryonic stem cells come from unborn embryos. Even within developed nations, research of stem cells is illegal because of this. These nations ignore a stem cell’s potential to cure lives; rather they focus on the source of stem cells. However, not every nation has a ban on stem cell research. Brazil, for example, completely allows stem cells to be researched on and cultivated from embryos because they understand that stem cells are the future of medicine. Contrastingly, Italy and Germany strictly forbid the creation and use of embryonic stem cells. But in a country like the US, the stem cell research policies are different because though it allows stem cell research it do does not allow any sort of federal funding for it. One could say that the US is sitting on the fence concerning stem cell research policies. Many factors are present in the judgment of the legality of stem cell research. Factors like the nation’s background, culture, society, their constitution and structure of their government. Before the viewpoints of different nations on the controversial stem cell research can be understood, one has to first understand what a stem cell is. Like almost anything, stem cells have pros and cons. However, with only a few negatives, the
…show more content…
positives that come with stem cells outnumber the negatives. The only bad side, for those who believe there is one, is that stem cells come from embryos. Some believe that an embryo is a living animal just like a human is, but those who are for stem cells believe that since it has not been born yet, it should not be considered one. But even this thought of killing a living animal, stem cell research can still be carried on because the alternative to an embryonic stem cell is an adult stem cell. An adult stem cell is a stem cell that is derived from cells in from human organs or tissues. But if this is true, then why is there such mayhem against embryonic stem cell research? The answer is simple, even though adult stem cells show potential; it will never be as effective or adaptable as an embryonic stem cell.
Furthermore, stem cells are considered future technology and when nations ban them they are only stopping their path to grow and discovery which will leave them far behind the nations that allow stem cell research. With the vast array of capabilities, it is hard to believe otherwise. Stem cells have the potential to help couples overcome infertility, to work as an insulin-secreting islet cell for people who suffer from Type 1 Diabetes, or to be turn into a cardiac tissue for those who have received damage from a heart attack (researchamerica.org). Stem cells also offer hope for people with disease ranging from Parkinson’s to Lou Gehrig’s and has even been proven to improve brain injuries or strokes. It is hard to believe that people could are against stem cell even when they understand all the magnificent implications of stem cells. With almost all of Europe beginning to fund stem cell research, Italy, Germany, Poland, Austria and Ireland all feel like they do not belong since they are the only ones who have yet to allow stem cell research. The map on the bottom right of the previous page, displays each European country and their legislations on stem cell research (Bosch). Looking back on WWII, Italy and Germany is not a surprising combo. They might have learned their lesson a little too well judging by the decisions they have made in modern day. The lesson being that a nation will get punished for experimenting on living humans. Even though stem cell research is not considered by most as being the equivalent of Nazi experiments on humans back in WWII, Italy and Germany are still against the whole idea of using an embryo to create an embryonic stem cell. The memories of innocent lives being lost for the better of science and technology still haunt the Italians and Germans. In these nations, scientists are force to immigrate to other nations where stem cell research is not illegal in order to continue their research. By making it difficult for stem cell researchers to experiment and research on stem cells, the overall knowledge of stem cells is being deprived due to the inability of intelligent German and Italian scientists to properly discover something new and share it with foreign scientists. They must get out of the past and strive for the future otherwise they will be left behind by most of the other developed nations.
Especially with the UK being so dominant in the field of stem cell research, Italy and Germany are going to have a difficult time advancing in medicine. Ian Wilmot, a Scottish scientist, with the use of embryonic stem cell, was the first ever to successfully clone an animal (Ralston). A year after that, a team of English scientists became the first to ever clone blastocyst, also known as early-stage embryos (Ralston). With this being said, how will the European countries with bans on stem cell research ever rise to the standards their neighbors are setting? I am sure it is only a matter of time before Italy and Germany release their bans on stem cell research to join the other nations that are exceeding in medicine.
On the other hand, Brazil, a country on its way to becoming developed, allows stem cell research with ease ("www.msnbc.msn.com"). Brazil is also one of the few countries in Latin America that is in full support of stem cell research. This investment cannot be considered a risk at all because it will only speed up Brazil process of becoming a developed nation. With the support of the vast majority of citizens in favor of stem cell research, Brazil could also be well on its way to becoming the Latin American leader in medicine. Brazil has had multiple successes with embryonic stem cells in curing illnesses and injuries. For example, the first wild animal treated with stem cell therapy was an injured Brazilian wolf that was left for dead after being hit by a truck (Boyle). It was veterinarian Rafael Bonorino who used stem cell to regenerate the cells near the wolf’s broken bones. After a few days of pain meds, the wolf miraculously recovered from its injury and escaped from the Brazilian National Zoo where it was being treated. Many animals like the Brazilian wolf have been treated using stem cells to test its side effects and possible outcomes. So it is not a question of whether it will work or not, but a question on why some countries, even after hearing of the miracles it has brought, are still not allowing stem cell research.
Furthermore, The Catholic Church is heavily against stem cell research because they consider it infanticide and Brazil is saturated with Catholic ideals. But even the Catholicism cannot persuade Brazilian legislators to pass a law that will ban stem cell research. The same year the legislation that permitted the research of stem cells in Brazil was passed, Brazil’s Catholic Church created a petition that challenged the law (Ralston). They argued that embryonic stem cell research violated the right to life but it only failed when the petition was rejected. The largest Roman Catholic country allows stem cells to be researched while the Roman Catholic Church itself is against the idea of embryonic stem cell research. Not all countries separate the church and the state when they are making policy decisions but Brazil is one of those that do.
Surprisingly enough, Islamic countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia also embrace stem cell research. Most people believe that religion as a whole is against stem cell research but that is incorrect. “Islam is very compatible with the modern sciences,” said Hassan Ashktorab of the Howard University Cancer Center ("thewashingtontimes.com"). It was 2002 when Saudi Arabia chose to make biotechnology “the new oil of Saudi Arabia” (Ralston). With a wide array of financial resources and increasing biotechnology, Saudi Arabia might emerge as the new leader in stem cell treatment. Private ventures are being made that will allow stem cell researchers, even international ones, to conduct experiments on stem cells using state of the art biotechnology laboratories (Friend). Also, with the Iranian government investing heavily into stem cell research, Iran, similar to Brazil, might become far more advanced than other, more developed, nations in the stem cell field. In the future, biomedical scientists/researchers would rather live in countries that have least restrictions on stem cell research. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Brazil, or even Iran. Especially in Islamic states where researchers are not face with the moral problem of that is being face by researchers in other countries.
What about America’s stem cell policy? America’s stem cell policy is a little bit more complex than the rest. This is because America’s stem cell policy allows for stem cell research but only few embryonic stem cells are eligible for federal funding, the few pre-existent embryonic stem cells. It is hard to say whether America’s stem cell policy is more like Brazil’s or Italy’s. Maybe it is just the prefect mix of the two extremes. This decision is reflective of America’s government itself; the constitution of the US is as vague as America’s policy on stem cell research and has just as much multiple meanings. America’s leniency on stem cell research has led to two different battling over the morality if embryonic stem cell. It has been like this for a very long time, two groups with different ideas fighting over who is write and ultimately over power. On March 9, 2009, restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research were lifted by President Barack Obama through the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 (researchamerica.org). Previously, embryonic stem cell lines that were created before August 9, 2001 were qualified for federal funding but any created after that date were exempt from any sort of federal funding forcing them to search for private funding. This was definite gain for those who are pro-choice because it made it that much easier for researchers to receive funding in order to conduct experiments on embryonic stem cells. According to Research America, “forty human embryonic stem cell lines have been approved for use in federally-funded research as of December 15, 2009,” (researchamerica.org). However, in order for President Obama’s order to stay in action, there must be some sort of legislative action to keep it from being lifted. Though, it is very likely that President Obama’s Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 will be lifted because of the counter views of other politicians who are pro-life.
But since President Obama did it, it will not be surprising if a future president also does it. Though the decision has been made today, the future is uncertain as to what America’s policy on stem cell research might
be.
In conclusion, stem cell research policies differ from nation to nation. America however is more different than other nations and very unique. Brazil, Saudi Arabia, and Iran allow the research of stem cells; Italy, Germany, Austria, Ireland, and Poland strictly ban the use of embryonic stem cells as a lab experiment. America does not have a solid yes or no decision on the lawfulness of stem cell research because it allows stem cells to experiment on with minor restrictions. America also regulates how federal funding for stem cell research should be used. If the battle between pro-choice and pro-life stem cell research policies were to be a war then America would be considered a neutral country. It is the history, culture, the government’s views, and the society that influence the acceptability of stem cell research. For Italy and Germany, it is history that is the prime factor; for Saudi Arabia and Iran it is culture and society; and for Brazil and America it is the government’s views/constitution.
Work Cited
Bosch, Xavier. "In Europe, as in US, Climate for Embryo Stem Cell Research Is One of Extremes." jama.ama-assn.org. American Medical Association , n.d. Web. 21 Dec 2011. .
Boyle, Rebecca. “Injured Brazilian Wolf Is First Wild Animal Treated With Stem Cells.” Popsci. Bonnier Corporation, Inc. 14 Jan. 2011. Web. 31 Oct. 2011. .
"Brazil OKs embryonic stem cell research."www.msnbc.msn.com. Associated Press, 29/05/2008. Web. 21 Dec 2011. .
“EU to fund embryo cell research.” BBC News. BBC MMXI, Inc. 24 July 2006. Web. 31 Oct. 2011. .
Friend, Tim. "Saudis take lead on stem-cell cloning."usatoday.com. USA Today, 08/07/2002. Web. 21 Dec 2011. .
"Iran a leader in stem cell scientific research." iranaffairs.org. ranian foreign policy and international affairs , 26 Feb. 2009. Web. 21 Dec 2011. .
Johnson, Megan. "What Stem Cells Can Do—and Can 't." http://health.usnews.com. US News, 23 Jan. 2009. Web. 21 Dec 2011. .
"Judge rules against Barack Obama’s stem cell policy." americaswatchtower.com. Word Press, 23/08/2010. Web. 21 Dec 2011. .
Ralston, Michelle. "Stem Cell Research Around the World."pewforum.org. The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, 07/07/2008. Web. 21 Dec 2011.
"Stem Cell Research FAQs." researchamerica.org. Research America, n.d. Web. 21 Dec 2011. .
"Stem Cell Basics: What are adult stem cells?." http://stemcells.nih.gov. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 05 Aug. 2010. Web. 21 Dec 2011. . “Stem cell laws and policy in the United States.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 6 Oct. 2011. Web. 31 Oct. 2011. .
Webb, Sarah. "Navigating the Stem-Cell Research Maze." http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org. American Association for the Advancement of Science, 01 Dec. 2006. Web. 21 Dec 2011..
“Wild Support for Stem-Cell Research in Brazil.” The Poll Archive. Angus Reid Public Opinion, Inc. 10 Mar. 2008. Web. 31 Oct. 2011. .
positives that come with stem cells outnumber the negatives. The only bad side, for those who believe there is one, is that stem cells come from embryos. Some believe that an embryo is a living animal just like a human is, but those who are for stem cells believe that since it has not been born yet, it should not be considered one. But even this thought of killing a living animal, stem cell research can still be carried on because the alternative to an embryonic stem cell is an adult stem cell. An adult stem cell is a stem cell that is derived from cells in from human organs or tissues. But if this is true, then why is there such mayhem against embryonic stem cell research? The answer is simple, even though adult stem cells show potential; it will never be as effective or adaptable as an embryonic stem cell.
Furthermore, stem cells are considered future technology and when nations ban them they are only stopping their path to grow and discovery which will leave them far behind the nations that allow stem cell research. With the vast array of capabilities, it is hard to believe otherwise. Stem cells have the potential to help couples overcome infertility, to work as an insulin-secreting islet cell for people who suffer from Type 1 Diabetes, or to be turn into a cardiac tissue for those who have received damage from a heart attack (researchamerica.org). Stem cells also offer hope for people with disease ranging from Parkinson’s to Lou Gehrig’s and has even been proven to improve brain injuries or strokes. It is hard to believe that people could are against stem cell even when they understand all the magnificent implications of stem cells. With almost all of Europe beginning to fund stem cell research, Italy, Germany, Poland, Austria and Ireland all feel like they do not belong since they are the only ones who have yet to allow stem cell research. The map on the bottom right of the previous page, displays each European country and their legislations on stem cell research (Bosch). Looking back on WWII, Italy and Germany is not a surprising combo. They might have learned their lesson a little too well judging by the decisions they have made in modern day. The lesson being that a nation will get punished for experimenting on living humans. Even though stem cell research is not considered by most as being the equivalent of Nazi experiments on humans back in WWII, Italy and Germany are still against the whole idea of using an embryo to create an embryonic stem cell. The memories of innocent lives being lost for the better of science and technology still haunt the Italians and Germans. In these nations, scientists are force to immigrate to other nations where stem cell research is not illegal in order to continue their research. By making it difficult for stem cell researchers to experiment and research on stem cells, the overall knowledge of stem cells is being deprived due to the inability of intelligent German and Italian scientists to properly discover something new and share it with foreign scientists. They must get out of the past and strive for the future otherwise they will be left behind by most of the other developed nations.
Especially with the UK being so dominant in the field of stem cell research, Italy and Germany are going to have a difficult time advancing in medicine. Ian Wilmot, a Scottish scientist, with the use of embryonic stem cell, was the first ever to successfully clone an animal (Ralston). A year after that, a team of English scientists became the first to ever clone blastocyst, also known as early-stage embryos (Ralston). With this being said, how will the European countries with bans on stem cell research ever rise to the standards their neighbors are setting? I am sure it is only a matter of time before Italy and Germany release their bans on stem cell research to join the other nations that are exceeding in medicine.
On the other hand, Brazil, a country on its way to becoming developed, allows stem cell research with ease ("www.msnbc.msn.com"). Brazil is also one of the few countries in Latin America that is in full support of stem cell research. This investment cannot be considered a risk at all because it will only speed up Brazil process of becoming a developed nation. With the support of the vast majority of citizens in favor of stem cell research, Brazil could also be well on its way to becoming the Latin American leader in medicine. Brazil has had multiple successes with embryonic stem cells in curing illnesses and injuries. For example, the first wild animal treated with stem cell therapy was an injured Brazilian wolf that was left for dead after being hit by a truck (Boyle). It was veterinarian Rafael Bonorino who used stem cell to regenerate the cells near the wolf’s broken bones. After a few days of pain meds, the wolf miraculously recovered from its injury and escaped from the Brazilian National Zoo where it was being treated. Many animals like the Brazilian wolf have been treated using stem cells to test its side effects and possible outcomes. So it is not a question of whether it will work or not, but a question on why some countries, even after hearing of the miracles it has brought, are still not allowing stem cell research.
Furthermore, The Catholic Church is heavily against stem cell research because they consider it infanticide and Brazil is saturated with Catholic ideals. But even the Catholicism cannot persuade Brazilian legislators to pass a law that will ban stem cell research. The same year the legislation that permitted the research of stem cells in Brazil was passed, Brazil’s Catholic Church created a petition that challenged the law (Ralston). They argued that embryonic stem cell research violated the right to life but it only failed when the petition was rejected. The largest Roman Catholic country allows stem cells to be researched while the Roman Catholic Church itself is against the idea of embryonic stem cell research. Not all countries separate the church and the state when they are making policy decisions but Brazil is one of those that do.
Surprisingly enough, Islamic countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia also embrace stem cell research. Most people believe that religion as a whole is against stem cell research but that is incorrect. “Islam is very compatible with the modern sciences,” said Hassan Ashktorab of the Howard University Cancer Center ("thewashingtontimes.com"). It was 2002 when Saudi Arabia chose to make biotechnology “the new oil of Saudi Arabia” (Ralston). With a wide array of financial resources and increasing biotechnology, Saudi Arabia might emerge as the new leader in stem cell treatment. Private ventures are being made that will allow stem cell researchers, even international ones, to conduct experiments on stem cells using state of the art biotechnology laboratories (Friend). Also, with the Iranian government investing heavily into stem cell research, Iran, similar to Brazil, might become far more advanced than other, more developed, nations in the stem cell field. In the future, biomedical scientists/researchers would rather live in countries that have least restrictions on stem cell research. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Brazil, or even Iran. Especially in Islamic states where researchers are not face with the moral problem of that is being face by researchers in other countries.
What about America’s stem cell policy? America’s stem cell policy is a little bit more complex than the rest. This is because America’s stem cell policy allows for stem cell research but only few embryonic stem cells are eligible for federal funding, the few pre-existent embryonic stem cells. It is hard to say whether America’s stem cell policy is more like Brazil’s or Italy’s. Maybe it is just the prefect mix of the two extremes. This decision is reflective of America’s government itself; the constitution of the US is as vague as America’s policy on stem cell research and has just as much multiple meanings. America’s leniency on stem cell research has led to two different battling over the morality if embryonic stem cell. It has been like this for a very long time, two groups with different ideas fighting over who is write and ultimately over power. On March 9, 2009, restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research were lifted by President Barack Obama through the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 (researchamerica.org). Previously, embryonic stem cell lines that were created before August 9, 2001 were qualified for federal funding but any created after that date were exempt from any sort of federal funding forcing them to search for private funding. This was definite gain for those who are pro-choice because it made it that much easier for researchers to receive funding in order to conduct experiments on embryonic stem cells. According to Research America, “forty human embryonic stem cell lines have been approved for use in federally-funded research as of December 15, 2009,” (researchamerica.org). However, in order for President Obama’s order to stay in action, there must be some sort of legislative action to keep it from being lifted. Though, it is very likely that President Obama’s Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 will be lifted because of the counter views of other politicians who are pro-life.
But since President Obama did it, it will not be surprising if a future president also does it. Though the decision has been made today, the future is uncertain as to what America’s policy on stem cell research might
be.
In conclusion, stem cell research policies differ from nation to nation. America however is more different than other nations and very unique. Brazil, Saudi Arabia, and Iran allow the research of stem cells; Italy, Germany, Austria, Ireland, and Poland strictly ban the use of embryonic stem cells as a lab experiment. America does not have a solid yes or no decision on the lawfulness of stem cell research because it allows stem cells to experiment on with minor restrictions. America also regulates how federal funding for stem cell research should be used. If the battle between pro-choice and pro-life stem cell research policies were to be a war then America would be considered a neutral country. It is the history, culture, the government’s views, and the society that influence the acceptability of stem cell research. For Italy and Germany, it is history that is the prime factor; for Saudi Arabia and Iran it is culture and society; and for Brazil and America it is the government’s views/constitution.
Work Cited
Bosch, Xavier. "In Europe, as in US, Climate for Embryo Stem Cell Research Is One of Extremes." jama.ama-assn.org. American Medical Association , n.d. Web. 21 Dec 2011. .
Boyle, Rebecca. “Injured Brazilian Wolf Is First Wild Animal Treated With Stem Cells.” Popsci. Bonnier Corporation, Inc. 14 Jan. 2011. Web. 31 Oct. 2011. .
"Brazil OKs embryonic stem cell research."www.msnbc.msn.com. Associated Press, 29/05/2008. Web. 21 Dec 2011. .
“EU to fund embryo cell research.” BBC News. BBC MMXI, Inc. 24 July 2006. Web. 31 Oct. 2011. .
Friend, Tim. "Saudis take lead on stem-cell cloning."usatoday.com. USA Today, 08/07/2002. Web. 21 Dec 2011. .
"Iran a leader in stem cell scientific research." iranaffairs.org. ranian foreign policy and international affairs , 26 Feb. 2009. Web. 21 Dec 2011. .
Johnson, Megan. "What Stem Cells Can Do—and Can 't." http://health.usnews.com. US News, 23 Jan. 2009. Web. 21 Dec 2011. .
"Judge rules against Barack Obama’s stem cell policy." americaswatchtower.com. Word Press, 23/08/2010. Web. 21 Dec 2011. .
Ralston, Michelle. "Stem Cell Research Around the World."pewforum.org. The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, 07/07/2008. Web. 21 Dec 2011.
"Stem Cell Research FAQs." researchamerica.org. Research America, n.d. Web. 21 Dec 2011. .
"Stem Cell Basics: What are adult stem cells?." http://stemcells.nih.gov. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 05 Aug. 2010. Web. 21 Dec 2011. . “Stem cell laws and policy in the United States.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 6 Oct. 2011. Web. 31 Oct. 2011. .
Webb, Sarah. "Navigating the Stem-Cell Research Maze." http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org. American Association for the Advancement of Science, 01 Dec. 2006. Web. 21 Dec 2011..
“Wild Support for Stem-Cell Research in Brazil.” The Poll Archive. Angus Reid Public Opinion, Inc. 10 Mar. 2008. Web. 31 Oct. 2011. .