Stem cell research is centered around comprehending how an organism evolves from a solitary cell and the capability to substitute malfunctioning cells with healthy ones. The objective of this research is to modify stem cells so that they transform into particular cell types, including blood or heart muscle cells, which can subsequently be reintegrated into the body. This research holds potential for curing ailments like diabetes and leukemia by replacing weakened cells with revitalized ones.
In the future, DNA engineering could potentially provide practical and affordable methods for eliminating diseases. However, is it justified to endanger lives when this outcome is not guaranteed? Alternative approaches to finding a cure without utilizing stem cell extraction must be explored. Stem cells possess remarkable capabilities as they can effectively address various life-threatening illnesses such as Leukemia, Diabetes, and Parkinson’s. Embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells are the two primary categories of bodily stem cells.
Stem cells possess a distinct capacity to develop into all distinct embryonic tissues found in an embryo. In adult formations, stem cells and parent cells act as a reparative mechanism for the body, restoring specialized cells and preserving the regular replacement of vital nurturing organs like blood, skin, or intestinal tissues. These versatile stem cells have the potential to transform into any of the 220 various cell types present in the human body. They are valuable tools for research and hold promise to potentially combat a vast array of epidemics in the future.
Instead of jeopardizing lives due to insufficient information or practice, it is currently wiser to seek alternative approaches for disease treatment. Stem cells, often referred to as “miracle cells” by researchers, possess the ability to differentiate into any cell type. Although this characteristic is typically beneficial as the extraction process should be non-harmful, incorrect procedures could result in a potentially lethal bodily response. Considering the availability of numerous technologies, is it truly worthwhile to assume such risks when there are other means of curing diseases?
Injecting stem cells into the body of a sick individual holds the potential for a cure. However, individuals may desire more than just a “possible” outcome for their health. At present, drug testing utilizes cancer cells and various other cell types to assess the effectiveness of anti-tumor medications. The abundance of stem cells enables an expansion of the range of cell types employed in drug testing.
Scientists require consistent environments in order to evaluate drugs effectively. This involves accurately controlling the differentiation of stem cells into specific cell types for drug testing. However, replicating the precise conditions for each drug is prone to errors. Moreover, adult stem cells from bone marrow, like embryonic stem cells, also have limitations in terms of supply.
Collecting cells from an individual is limited in number and requires careful decision-making to avoid errors. Cord Blood Cells states that adult stem cells have a shorter storage life compared to embryonic stem cells, and the process of obtaining them is highly challenging. The rigid nature of adult stem cells hinders their reprogramming into various cell types, and numerous uncertainties still surround these cells.
Both embryonic stem cell research and adult stem cells encounter unique obstacles. Embryonic stem cells carry the risk of defects and the potential presence of the targeted disease in the adult cell’s genes. Additionally, controlling embryonic stem cells is particularly challenging, often necessitating multiple attempts to achieve the desired cell. As a result, if the initial retrieval is unsuccessful, researchers must make repeated attempts, potentially posing complications that could be detrimental to the patient.
The use of embryonic stem cells requires the destruction of embryos between five and eight days old, which raises moral and ethical concerns. Moreover, there is a possibility of transplant rejection when an embryo from any donor is rejected by the body. Additionally, our limited understanding of these cells poses a risk of cancer or tumor development. Although some argue in favor of the benefits outweighing the drawbacks, considering the outlined disadvantages in this document, many people, including myself, believe that extracting adult stem cells and especially embryonic cells entails more risks than benefits.
There is a contentious discussion concerning the acceptance of stem cell research, with opposing viewpoints. Certain individuals perceive it as unethical due to the extraction of stem cells from embryos, which are considered as valuable as adult human life. This controversy mirrors that surrounding abortion, where there is disagreement on whether destroying embryos for stem cell extraction equates to terminating a human life. Many people, including myself, believe that the potential of umbilical cord blood for stem cell research is often disregarded.
According to Deborah White, the umbilical cord becomes non-functional and harmless after childbirth. Furthermore, she points out that embryonic stem cell therapy has not been successful in treating illnesses. To avoid wasting time on these unsuccessful approaches, it is recommended to consider less controversial and harmful alternatives. Critics contend that advancements in embryonic stem cells could potentially result in reproductive cloning and devalue human life.
Supporters of the pro-life movement believe that preserving an embryo is essential as they view it as a human life. The National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC) has warned about the dangers of human cloning, citing safety concerns. NBAC highlights that the method used to create Dolly the sheep had a success rate of only one in 277 attempts. If this technique were employed on humans, it could result in risks such as hormonal manipulation in the egg donor, multiple miscarriages in the birth mother, and potential severe developmental abnormalities in any resulting offspring” (“HubPages”).
When alternative methods are available, it may not be wise to continue with stem cell research due to the associated risks. Nevertheless, advocates of embryonic stem cell research contend that pursuing such studies holds the potential for significant medical advancements. Additionally, leftover embryos could be utilized for research purposes with appropriate consent. However, it is important to also recognize the ethical concerns of using these embryos when there is widespread opposition against it.
Cloning may offer childless couples an alternative to adoption. Legalized cloning would likely involve selecting clones with similar traits as the parents. In fact, some guardians might prefer a cloned child over a biological one. Nevertheless, the moral, ethical, legal, and social implications of human cloning are still subject to intense debate. Recent research has explored alternative ways of obtaining stem cells without harming embryos.
Stem cells can be acquired through a method resembling embryo cloning, as per “Mibba Creative Writing.” Yet, this approach entails transferring the nucleus of the donor’s cell into an egg lacking its own nucleus. By doing so, the egg is incapable of developing into an embryo but enables the retrieval of functional stem cells. This procedure is referred to as altered nuclear transfer.
Another method involves gathering live stem cells from embryos that have been declared deceased. Normally, these embryos are cryopreserved and produced through fertilization.
Both stem cell research and therapeutic cloning are experimental methods that are believed to be effective. The question then arises: is it worth taking the risk? According to Mibba Creative Writing, opposition to stem cells primarily comes from followers of the Christian and Catholic faiths. Many religious individuals believe that America lacks sensitivity and is searching for a “miracle cure.” These beliefs originate from their stance on abortion, where an embryo is seen as a human life, and any harm to it is considered equivalent to murder. Some people hold such strong convictions that they would refuse stem cell treatment even if it means facing a life-threatening condition.
Some individuals hold the belief that an embryo possesses greater worth than their own existence due to their unwillingness to cause harm to another life. It is not our position to pass judgment on others for their religious perspectives, and we should demonstrate consideration for their convictions. In essence, although stem cell research has the capacity to bring advantages to society and humanity as a whole, our current understanding of the matter is inadequate to regard it as a feasible choice. While stem cells possess the capability to transform into any specific functioning cell, there remains uncertainty regarding the success of the procedure on its initial undertaking.
The collection of adult stem cells from the bone marrow is a precise and delicate procedure. In contrast, the use of embryonic cells involves the destruction of one-day-old embryos, which raises ethical concerns. Furthermore, there are possible risks such as rejection and the development of cancer or tumors. Hence, additional research is imperative to guarantee the safety and efficacy of stem cell therapy in treating diseases without causing harm to humans.
