Theory Post: Religion Wins the Battle

There is one clear reason why after several years, there are still two sides of the argument pertaining to the advancement in embryonic stem cell research: One side approves due to many benefits of scientific experimentation while the other side opposes based on cultural predispositions, especially religion. Although embryonic stem cell research will bring about benefits to the world such as cures to various diseases, it seems to me that the advancement in this scientific experimentation is impossible due to religious beliefs holding studies back. People have already made it clear that they believe embryonic stem cell research is "Playing God." Polls show that nearly half of the people who oppose embryonic stem cell research claim this scientific experimentation goes against their religion. I predict that our government will favor the "religious" opinion on stem cell research even though statistics show more people are in favor of scientific studies. Religion is more likely to be respected due to politicians taking it in to consideration that the advancement in stem cell research will disrespect people's beliefs.

Why Federal Funding for Embryonic Stem Cell Research has Decreased

Although scientists have concluded that embryonic stem cells are the best cells to obtain when experimenting with a goal of deriving cures of various diseases, federal funding has been decreasing over the past few years. There are three main reasons as to why funding is decreasing, all of which are associated with a governmental perspective. Primarily, from a governmental standpoint, the United States is facing economic issues which arise from events such as the war in Iraq and continual cost increase in oil. Because of this, more federal money is being contributed to aiding in the war and finding ways to obtain new oil (or even a new energy source). Secondly, although President Bush supports the advancement in scientific experimentation for benefiting the world, he opposes embryonic stem cell research due to his opinion on the ethics. He believes that embryos are living beings, so he feels embryonic stem cell research promotes killing, just as embryonic abortion. Although 90 million dollars in federal money has been spent for stem embryonic cell research within the past five years through the National Institution of Health, it's not enough. Furthermore, because of his beliefs, President Bush will do whatever it takes to convince congress members not to vote for funding in embryonic stem cell research. For example, he can veto bills regarding embryonic stem cell research, as he has done in 2006. Finally, since stem cell research is very controversial, federally funding in large amounts will upset millions of people who oppose embryonic stem cell research. This would be a political disadvantage because governmental leaders who support large funding will lose future votes.

I end this post by informing my audience about current funding. Although federal funding has decreased, private funding is gradually increasing. To view more information on the reliance and progress of private funding for stem cell research, visit http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8205.

The Sheep Story

One of the biggest stories that has to do with cloning would be the full replication of a sheep, resulting in an animal named Dolly. This cloned sheep became a huge subject in scientific conversation when she was born in 1997. Studies in cloning and stem cell research progressed as Dolly was physically analyzed. Dolly's physical status was constantly checked by the Roslin Institute, and her organs seemed to be functioning quite well. However, in 2003, Dolly had to be put to sleep because she was suffering from a gradual yet severe lung disease. Nobody knows how this disease developed, but people have their own theories. For example, some say Dolly obtained the disease from an environmental factor while others claim she died from unnaturally created.
Dolly's relatively early death in February 2003 created the debate about the ethics of cloning research and the long-term health of clones. These ethics include the proper treatment of animals during cloning. If scientist clone animals, and these animals die early, people tend to think of cloning as cruelty.
Obviously, cloning humans is another story. Primarily, human testing isn't ready because animals and other living organisms are dying relatively early. Also, the degree of scientific study with humans becomes more intense because people have stronger opinions about humans, which is understandable.
I end this post with a request to my audience: Feel free to leave a comment about your opinion on cloning and Dolly. I'd like to know how you people feel about this very controversial issue.
To view photos and gain more information about Dolly, check out this website: http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/antenna/dolly/index.asp

Cloning = Stem Cell Research?

Before writing about cloning, I'd like to thank APERRY for bringing up an important point in the controversy of stem cell research. This person made a comment on my post regarding the positions of democrats and republicans on stem cell research. APERRY said that when she thinks about stem cell research, she automatically thinks about cloning and she believes that a lot of people think the same way. So, from what I'm understanding from APERRY, people predefine stem cell research as cloning. At this point, I'd like to INTRODUCE and discuss the controversy behind cloning. I put the word "introduce" in all caps because I'm giving a broad perspective of cloning. Future posts will be in more detail regarding cloning.

My Definition of Cloning: Replicating DNA, somatic cells, or gamete cells in order to create a new organism that shares the exact same complexity and genotype of its original DNA strand, somatic cell, or gamete cell.

Among all the controversial issues regarding stem cell research, cloning seems to be the word that appears the most in ethical arguments because people who are against stem cell research claim that cloning is wrong according their cultural beliefs. Previously mentioned in one my posts regarding Christian beliefs versus stem cell research, Christians define cloning as playing God. This is because cloning can lead to very complex organisms being created from humans, such as insects and even animals. According to various religious beliefs, including Christianity, only higher power(s) should be responsible for creating the organisms that walk this Earth.
Scientists respond to the cultural argument of cloning by mentioning the benefits of cloning without creating more complex organisms such as insects or animals. The advance in cloning can benefit in the studies of gene therapy, genetic engineering of organisms, and sequencing genomes. Gene therapy can be used to treat certain genetic conditions by introducing virus vectors that carry corrected copies of faulty genes into the cells of a host organism. Genes from different organisms that improve taste and nutritional value or provide resistance to particular types of disease can be used to genetically engineer food crops.
So, once again, it's obvious that there are two sides to stem cell research. One side is defined by cultural beliefs and the other side is defined by scientific beliefs and advancements.
I'll end this post by saying that cloning and stem cell research are two totally different things. Cloning is a part of stem cell research. There are many techniques, such as observing the behavior of stem cells, used in stem cell research to understand the behavior of diseases and anatomical processes. Cloning is strictly replicating stem cells. Also, may I say that some cloning is considered a natural process. Cells replicate by a means of mitosis and meiosis. Also, Identical twins are considered clones. I only mention these things because I want people to further understand the concept of cloning, not to show people a biased opinion on how I feel about cloning.

Analysis of the Controversy

From a broad perspective, stem cell research has become a very controversial issue due to many people opposing from cultural predispositions such as religion and scientists defining embryos as non-living things. Most people who support stem cell research claim to support it due to medical progressions that can be derived. There are many issues that outline people’s decisions regarding their positive or negative views on stem cell research.

People support stem cell research because cures to diseases can be derived and medicine will become reachable for many more people. The main reason why people choose to support stem cell research is because stem cells offer the possibility of a renewable source of replacement cells and tissue to treat a numerous amount of diseases, conditions, and disabilities including Parkinson's and Alzheimer's diseases. Also, stem cell research will aid in searching for a cure to spinal cord injury, stroke, burns, heart disease, diabetes, osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. Medicine would become less expensive, meaning that more people would have a financial grasp on medications.

Although stem cell research will bring about benefits in the form of cures, people oppose this research mainly because people, including scientists, have different definitions of when life begins, and since embryos are being used in stem cell research, debate is very significant. Most scientists say that stem cells from a five-day-old embryo, or blastocyst, hold the greatest potential for medical benefits. When these stem cells are collected, the embryo is destroyed. Many people, believing that an embryo is a living being with a fundamental right to life, find that practice intolerable. Also, scientists claim that life does not begin during the embryonic phase, so they are not doing anything wrong.

In an attempt to resolve the issue of ethics regarding embryonic stem cells, new insight of techniques in obtaining stem cells have been derived, but there are minor problems with these new ways. Alternatives have been found, such as using adult stem cells. These stem cells can be found in adult red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets, and bone marrow. However, the use of adult stem cells is not as beneficial as using embryonic stem cells. This is because embryonic stem cells can transform into any kind of cell whereas adult stem cells can only replicate into their specific type. For example, an adult bone marrow stem cell can only replicate into more bone marrow cells. In addition, unlike embryonic stem cells, adult stem cells are relatively difficult to find because they appear very similar to regular somatic cells. Also, adult stem cells are harder to work with due to the merely impossible task of performing in-vitro on adult stem cells.

In addition to opposing stem cell research due to the belief that obtaining embryonic stem cells is promoting killing to living humans, people are against stem cell research because they believe that some parts of this research goes against their religious beliefs. For example, Christians believe some parts of stem cell research, such as cloning, are considered playing the role of God. Also, the majority of Christians believe embryos are living, and it says in the Bible that killing is a sin.

Although many Christians believe that stem cell research goes against their religious beliefs, some Christians have shifted sides on stem cell research because they see more benefits. For example, according to an online blog, some Christians say that embryonic stem cell research will save lives and the government will ensure that this research is performed with ethics and safety. In addition, stem cell research done today has nothing to do with reproductive choice, so some Christians argue that stem cell research isn’t even a matter of ethics.

Moving from a religious to a political standpoint, democrats and republicans share different views on stem cell research. Most democrats support stem cell research due to the medical advancements that are possible whereas republicans are split. Republicans are split because many feel that the embryonic controversy parallels with abortion, a topic that republicans are against. However, as the years have gone by, some republicans have shifted their sides and views on stem cell research because they see potential of deriving cures. For example, President Bush (R) has funded for stem cell research regarding the creation of more adult stem cell lines for more efficient studying. Stem cell lines are families of continuously replicating stem cells from single parent cells. However, Bush has made it clear through conferences that he finds embryonic stem cell research immoral.

Regardless if stem cell research becomes a great source of cures for the future, it is inevitable that there will always be debate as to whether or whether stem cell research is ethical. This is valid because the world is full of diversity. With diversity comes different culture, which affects every decision people make. From religion to political party, people will have conflicts in standing up to what they feel is right.

Where do Democrats and Republicans Fall Under Stem Cell Research?

When analyzing the controversies behind stem cell research, it is very important to analyze the different political standpoints regarding the advance of scientific experimentation. The majority of democrats tend to favor the funding of stem cell research due to the medical examination purposes that can lead to cures of many diseases whereas republicans are split because many feel stem cell research parallels with abortion, a subject that is not favored by republicans. This is because embryonic stem cells used to be taken from aborted embryos, and since republicans are pro-life, some oppose embryonic stem cell research because it advocates abortion (http://www.newsbatch.com/stemcells.htm). Over the years, more republicans have switched over to supporting stem cell research because they feel the same way as the democrats do: Stem cell research can save lives through new technologies and cures. In fact, according the posted link within this paragraph, 13 out of the 60 senators who signed a letter urging for President Bush to fund for research regarding the cloning of embryos were republicans.

Currently, like many other republicans, President Bush is mixed on stem cell research. Although he rejected the letter regarding embryonic cloning, mentioned in the previous paragraph, and banned cloning of human embryos, he still funds other parts of stem cell research. For example, in 2001, Bush funded for the creation of more cell lines. A cell line is a family of constantly dividing stem cells derived from a single “parent” cell (http://www.isscr.org/science/faq.htm). When having more stem cell lines, research becomes more efficient and easier.

I end this post with a dedication to a former president Ronald Regan who died in 2004 due to Alzheimer’s disease. He was a well respected man and a tremendous leader. Currently, his family, specifically his son, attempts to encourage funding in the research of Alzheimer’s. Imagine if stem cell research became more advanced. Victims of Alzheimer’s would have a cure to strongly depend on. Regan would certainly be proud to see his fellow Americans striving to help people around the world.

Christian Beliefs vs. Stem Cell Research

Another controversy dealing with stem cell research is the belief that certain fields in this study, such as cloning, are considered playing the role of a higher power. Specifically, the majority of the Christian population is against stem cell research due to their opinion on how scientists are “Playing God”. For this matter, I’ve decided to take a different research approach to prove a point. Instead of posting an article, I’m posting a blog website.

Check out this website: http://blog01.kintera.com/christianalliance/archives/2005/05/why_christians.html

This is a blog that discusses why Christians should support stem cell research. It goes into depth by using 5 main reasons to support the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. They are:

1. Stem cell research will save lives.

2. Our government will ensure that stem cell research will be performed with ethics and safety.

3. Stem cell research has nothing to do with reproductive choice (these cells don’t require an implant into a woman’s womb nor do these cells need to be fertilized).

4. Embryonic stem cell research is supported by many religions due to the benefits.

5. The majority of Americans support stem cell research.

When visiting this blog, these 5 reasons are analyzed and then they are criticized by other online bloggers.

On a personal note, I am Christian, and there have been times when I thought stem cell research was wrong because I labeled this research as divine intervention. However, I began to realize that stem cell research wasn’t a bad thing at all. In fact, I later on redefined my thoughts on stem cell research. I see it as scientific research to save lives. If our government ensures stem cell research will be performed with ethics and safety, what’s the problem with accepting stem cell research?

I end this post with a question for my audience: Should we base our views on stem cell research through our cultural predispositions such as religion?

The Definition of Living

Before writing about embryos, I'd like to take the time to thank the people who responded to my first post. Clearly, I'm not the only one who feels obligated to stand up and say something about stem cell research. I appreciate every person's input and I hope there will be more responses to come. To those who oppose my view, feel free to comment. I accept and respect all opinions. Now, let's move on to a more relevant issue: Are embryos living human beings?

It goes without saying that one must know the definition of stem cells prior to giving an opinion on stem cell research. According to the Google definition, stem cells are cells that can change into many different cellular types depending on bodily responses to internal and external stimuli. Upon further review, one must ask a very important question: Where do we obtain these stem cells? The answer to this question is quite simple; scientists can retrieve stem cells from two sources: adults and embryos.
The main controversy behind stem cell research deals with embryonic stem cells. These cells are very beneficial as they change into any kind of cell that is needed for a given situation. This is because embryonic cells haven't been given a bodily assignment yet due to the development inside the womb. To make things less controversial, scientists have delivered a scientific breakthrough in which adult stem cells can be used when researching. However, adult stem cells aren't as beneficial as embryonic stem cells because adult cells already have a "bodily niche". An adult liver cell will always remain a liver cell whereas an embryonic cell could manipulate several cellular types.
Why is obtaining embryonic stem cells considered a controversy? This answer parallels with the controversy behind abortion. Several people consider embryos as living human beings. So, if scientists obtain embryonic stem cells, this could be seen as promoting the killing of babies. In fact, scientists used to get embryonic stem cells from aborted embryos, but that is currently illegal. Instead, embryonic stem cells can be retrieved during a woman's pregnancy through amniocentesis and through certain animals. However, this process can still be considered putting babies at risk.
This issue of embryonic stem cells is controversial mainly for the fact that people have different definitions of what is living and what is not. Embryos can possibly be considered living because they turn into fetuses and later on, they become babies. Other than that, there is no clear evidence that could prove embryos are living. The heart and lungs are just beginning to develop, but scientists can not determine if these organs are functioning at the embryonic phase. Also, the nervous system is extremely premature, so a reaction to an outside stimulus is very minimal. In fact, it is possible not to have a response at all because the threshold has not been met.
With the analysis of the embryonic development, I feel that an embryo has a potential of becoming a living thing, but I don't believe it is living. However, people have different views, which leads to my question for the audience: What is your definition of living?

The Dawning of a Scientific Argument

Currently, whenever mentioning stem cell research, many people automatically assume that this field of science is wrong due to the neglect of ethics derived from religious backgrounds and other cultural predispositions. For example, certain studies in stem cell research, such as cloning, are said to be performing a divine intervention. Also, it has publically been said that the utilization of embryonic stem cells is the equivalency of promoting killing because some people consider embryos as living breathing human beings.
Although people feel stem cell research is wrong, a clear projection is that the advance in the scientific study of stem cells will actually bring about many benefits. Through progressing in stem cell research, people could further understand the nature of disease and anatomical processes. From this, scientists could create cures for many diseases such as Parkinson’s disease, cancer, diabetes, and Alzheimer’s disease. Also, if duplicating healthy cells becomes a way of cure, then they can be donated into people’s bodies to improve their physical beings. Millions of people would be helped as they would have easier access to medicine, and above all, lives would be saved.
With great knowledge of stem cells comes great responsibility to uphold scientific ethics. When incorporating stem cell research into the progression of cures, it is important that scientists conduct preliminary studies with animals. Then, when these studies show positive outcomes, human testing can be suitable. It is also important that both humans and animals are treated with care and respect during the course of experimentation. Furthermore, stem cell research should only be used for the benefits of mankind. Studies such as “building” an ideal healthy person should be permitted due the want of making a “superhuman”.
With a slight knowledge on what people think, the benefits, and proper limitations regarding stem cell research, I have a question for the audience: If we limit stem cell research based on scientific ethics such as treating animals and humans with care, what’s wrong about moving forward in stem cell research with a goal of saving people around the world?