Advantages and Disadvantages of Adult and Embryonic Stem Cells
Both adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells have disadvantages and advantages relating to their possible use in therapeutic stem cell treatments. The obvious difference is the difference in the variety of specialised cells that each can form. Embryonic stem cells can form any specialised cell in the human body; however adult stem cells are limited to forming only the cells of the tissue that they are in. Therefore, in regards to research and treatments, embryonic stem cells will be more useful in this case, as they are not limited to the cells they can form.
A disadvantage of using adult stem cells is the difficulty in culturing them compared to the culturing of embryonic stem cells. This difficulty arises due to the relatively low amount of adult stem cells in living tissue. In adult bone marrow, there is only approximately 1 adult stem cell in every 1000 cells. An economic implication of this difficulty in culturing would be that more money would be invested to develop more effective ways to isolate adult stem cells from their tissues. However, this will benefit many people in the future, as a larger variety of adult stem cells would be more easily obtained. This means that adult stem cell therapy will gain more methods in which they sick patients can be treated. Hence a positive implication of this is that patients will be provided with more effective stem cell treatments in the future. Embryonic stem cells are much easier to culture and therefore would benefit our nation economically, as less money would be spent in the actual culturing of them. They are much easier to culture because there is a much higher concentration of them found in the blastocyst, as the blastocyst consists of only a few hundred cells. They are therefore easily isolated from other cells in the blastocyst; hence they can be cultured far easier.
It is clear that the use of embryonic stem cells in treatments and for research have some benefits over adult stem cells. However, the research of embryonic cells has been severely restricted. Many people in society protest against the research of embryonic stem cells, as they believe that it is ethically wrong to destroy embryos that have the potential to develop into living human beings. This ethical debate is the major factor that limits embryonic stem cell research and future treatments. This is because governments invest nothing, or very little into the research of embryonic stem cells. An example of this in the past is when George Bush was president of the United Sates. Bush was against embryonic stem cell research and severely restricted the number of embryos used, and the federal funding towards the research. Also, in China, embryonic stem cell research is “generally banned”, according to the Chinese Health Ministry.Therefore, in some countries scientists are severely limited with the studies that they can do on embryonic stem cells. This used to be the case in the USA, until Bush was replaced as president (and it still is the case in China). Scientists can become restricted in their research due to the lack of available money. If insufficient funds are provided, it will become much harder for scientists to acquire the needed research equipment. Because of this, the scientists would not be able to research embryonic stem cells very effectively, if at all. Also, the general ban on embryos, or restricted embryo use, would mean that scientists would not possibly be able to experiment with them. Therefore these factors have limited the progress made with embryonic stem cell research.
An advantage of the use of adult stem cells in stem cell treatments, is the fact that they have a much lower chance of being rejected from the patient’s body after being transplanted (injected into the body). This is because the patient’s body may react when foreign items (such as foreign cells) are inoculated into it. Embryonic stem cells would be recognised as foreign because they contain completely different DNA to the patient, as they were sourced from an embryo that does not belong to the patient’s body. It is possible, with adult stem cells, to remove the stem cells from the patient, allow them to replicate and culture, and then inject them into a different area that requires them. Because the inoculated stem cells are actually taken from the patient, the chances of rejection are much lower. This is because they contain the same genome as the patient and they would also contain no foreign antigens on the outside; therefore the patient’s body would not recognise it as foreign. It is not possible to inoculate embryonic stem cells from the patient’s own body, because embryonic stem cells can only be acquired from a blastocyst (an embryo in its earliest stages). Therefore the chances of rejection are much higher if embryonic stem cells are used in treatments. This is because the embryonic stem cells are going to have a different genome and will be covered in foreign antigens; thus the body will recognise them as foreign, increasing the chances of rejection from the body and complications after transplantation.
Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells
A possible alternative to embryonic and adult stem cells has been discovered. Scientists have been able to create pluripotent cells from normal somatic cells (for example, from a skin cell). By inducing a change in the genetic makeup of a somatic cell, scientists have created “induced pluripotent stem cells”. These induced pluripotent stem cells (or iPS cells) display properties that are very similar to embryonic stem cells. These include the production of the same proteins, as well as the fact that they both have the ability to differentiate into a variety of somatic cells.34 These similar properties are due to the similar genomes of these 2 stem cell types, which results in similar amino acids produced, hence similar proteins and enzymes. However, the similarity of these two pluripotent stem cells is still being investigated. They could have significant differences, such as different reactions to a certain drug, or other unforeseen complications. If an iPS cell was transplanted into a person and it reacted differently to a drug taken, the patient could be badly harmed, or cancer could even be caused. They may act unusually in a human body, due to their altered genetic makeup. This is because the genome is not exactly the same, although it is still very similar. These implications of iPS cells are discussed in greater detail below.
How are Somatic Cells Induced to Become Pluripotent?
Research has shown that only very few genes found in embryonic stem cells are responsible for their pluripotent characteristics. Examples of these genes include “Sox-2”; “Oct-4” and “Nanog”.22 As shown in the opposite diagram, the introduction of these specific genes into the somatic cell causes it to gain the ability to differentiate. Genes are usually introduced (also known as “transfected”) into somatic cells by inoculating specific viruses into the cell.13 These viruses have been specifically engineered to introduce the pluripotency genes into the host cell. These viruses (known as “retroviruses”) replicate within the host cell, without destroying it. They then produce the genes responsible for pluripotency, which is incorporated into the host cell’s genome by an “integrase” enzyme. 13 After approximately 3-4 weeks, a small number of cells with altered genomes become pluripotent; hence they have become “induced pluripotent stem cells”. Only a small number of the original somatic cells show the same properties as embryonic stem cells, however this is all that is needed. This is because this small number of cells also now has the ability to multiply indefinitely, just as embryonic stem cells can. Therefore, within a few weeks, a noticeable culture of “induced pluripotent stem cells” will become apparent.
Advantages and Disadvantages of Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells.
The discovery of iPS cells has been described as “an important advance for stem cell research”. This is because they have the same benefits as embryonic stem cells (pluripotency); however they do not have the same disadvantages. Firstly a medical benefit would be that there would be no donor-host rejection in treatments with iPS cells.34 This is because somatic cells would be taken straight from the patient’s body, and then induced to become pluripotent. Because they are derived straight from the patient’s body, the body would not recognise the iPS cells as foreign. This lessens surgical complications if iPS cells were ever to be used in medical practise. However, post-surgery drug therapy could still cause complications due to the unknown responses that iPS cells could have to particular drugs. Thus, it is imperative that drug effects on iPS cells are thoroughly researched before they are medically applied. Because iPS cells are pluripotent, they could potentially be made to become any type of tissue. This means that they could be used to treat many diseases which involve inactive or malfunctioning tissues (such as Parkinson’s disease, macular degeneration, heart disease and even some forms of cancer). Therefore their medical applications could have an extremely positive effect on how patients are treated.
Secondly, and more importantly iPS cells do not have the same controversy and objections against their use.34 This is because they are not derived from an embryo; therefore no embryos are destroyed in the creation of them. People are going to be less likely to have any objections with iPS cells. Therefore the research of them and their therapeutic uses will not be as restricted as they were for embryonic stem cells. This means progress made would be much more rapid, as more money is likely to be invested by governments. This is a positive economical implication of the use of iPS cells. More money would be invested by governments and companies, as it would now be the socially accepted thing to do; as only positive gains can be made, and embryonic stem cells are no longer destroyed. Because more money is being invested, scientists are able to have all the necessary equipment and facilities to carry out their research, hence they can maximise the quality of their research. Overall, this will lead to significant knowledge being found out about iPS cells, meaning that they are more likely to fulfil their medical potential.
The main disadvantage of the use of induced pluripotent stem cells is the unknown properties that they could have. Because DNA is randomly inserted into the host cells genome by a “retrovirus”, certain characteristics could be expressed that are unwanted in these stem cells. For example, when iPS cells were initially discovered, one of the genes transfected by the “retrovirus” (known as c-MYC) was shown to produce cancers and tumours. This therefore made iPS cells unusable for human therapy, until this gene was eliminated in later techniques. There is still the potential that there are more genes transfected into the host cell that are undesirable. Hence, it is vital that research on iPS cells continues, to isolate and eliminate the undesirable genes, so that eventually, iPS cells can be used in human therapies. All properties of these cells must be thoroughly checked to ensure that they are suitable for human use, and if they aren’t, they must be altered until they are, so that they can be used to treat patients. Another complication that arises with iPS cells is their shorter life span. This occurs because the cells that they are derived from (e.g. skin cells) are usually relatively old. The shorter life span of these iPS cells can be explained by the shortening of the telomeres as a somatic cell gets older. As shown on the diagram below, a telomere is the region of repetitive DNA that is found at the end of a chromosome, which helps to prevent the chromosome from deteriorating.27 After each successive cell division, the telomeres at the end of every chromosome shorten slightly, because of a problem that occurs during DNA replication (caused by the leading strand and the lagging strand).27 It is believed that the successive shortening of the telomeres limits the number of divisions of cells in the body. Eventually, a cell with telomeres that are too short will no longer be able to divide. Therefore, when somatic cells are taken from the body and induced to become pluripotent, the resultant pluripotent cells will have a similar telomere length. If these telomeres are short, then the iPS cell is going to have a shorter life span than the corresponding embryonic stem cells. This is because it already has a relatively small telomere length that continues to decrease as the iPS cell divides over and over again to produce numerous daughter cells. Therefore iPS cells will have a shorter life span.
However, induced pluripotent stem cell research has made great progress in its 3 years of existence.16 Very recently, researchers have developed a way of creating iPS cells without directly altering the human genome.16 Instead of adding new genes to a host cell, and the actual proteins responsible for differentiation are added. iPS cells are a relatively new technology, and must be further researched in order to gain a better understanding of them. Once more information is known about them, and better techniques are developed, they will be incredibly useful, as they have the advantages of both an embryonic stem cell and an adult stem cell. I believe that iPS cells will be the type of stem cell that will provide the greatest yields in the future. This is because it will be funded more by governments, as it is more acceptable in society (than embryonic stem cells). This means scientists will be able to research them more effectively and efficiently. Once more is known about these iPS cells, and the most effective production technique is found, they should eventually be able to be applied in medical therapies. They will not have the same possibility of rejection from the body (as embryonic stem cells do) and they are not limited in the type of cells they can differentiate into (as adult stem cells are). Therefore, induced pluripotent stem cells are a very viable option for future medical therapies.
The Medical Potential of Stem Cells
The medical potential for stem cells is enormous. In the future, it is bound to have large implications on how patients are treated, how drugs are tested and our knowledge of the differentiation of cells. Many potential uses of stem cells are shown on the opposite diagram; all of which are discussed below. Firstly, and most importantly, a potential application of researching stem cells is the production of generations of tissues and even whole organs that could be used in cell-based therapies. Often tissues or organs need to be transplanted into a patient, because they have become damaged or ineffective. In the present, tissues and organs are donated by individuals and then transplanted into the patient’s body.12 However; there is always a shortage of donors, resulting in patients suffering, and in many cases, dying. Stem cells, that are stimulated to differentiate into specific cells, offer a renewable source of replacement cells, tissues and organs to treat numerous diseases and injuries.12 These include Alzheimer’s disease, stroke, heart disease, diabetes, osteoarthritis, burns and even spinal cord injuries.12 All of these diseases and injuries involve the damage of or loss of vital cells and tissues. These tissues can be cultivated with stem cells, and then transplanted into the patient. For example, blood cells can be produced, then transplanted into the bone marrow of a patient, which could cure types of leukaemia (disease in which blood cells in the bone marrow are not functioning properly). Nerve cells could also be cultured, then transplanted into a patient with Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease or even a spinal cord injury ( all of which are caused by ineffective nerve cells in the body). In the spinal injury, the nerve cells grown from stem cells could be injected into the spine to replace those that have died as a result of the injury. This will lessen the effects of the spinal injury, as lost nerve cells (causing the immobility and loss of feeling) are being replaced. Both of these treatments have already been established in our society (for the treatment of leukaemia and spinal injuries). For example, in 2003, scientists used adult stem cells from umbilical cord blood, and transplanted them into a spinal injury victim. Following this procedure, she could walk without any aid. This is a vivid example of the potential of stem cell therapies. Another example is the “stem cell therapy” organisation in German, where over 4,000 patients (with similar disabilities and illnesses) have been treated and over 80% of all patients showed improvement after therapy. This is only the very start of the applications of stem cells, as there are many more tissues, cells and even organs that can be transplanted. For example the cardiac muscles, in the heart could be cultivated from stem cells, and then introduced into a patient to replace damaged ones. This could prevent heart disease and possibly even strokes. Diabetes could even be treated, through the production of pancreatic cells, which will increase insulin levels, thus decreasing symptoms of diabetes.
Various other treatments for chronic diseases and illnesses can be discovered from the knowledge gained through stem cell research. Studies of embryonic stem cells will yield information about the complex events that occur during cell division, specialisation and human development. The information found about the chemical reactions and gene interactions can be applied to treat many illnesses. Some of the most serious medical conditions, including cancer and birth defects, are due to abnormal cell division and differentiation.15 A better understanding of the chemical and genetic processes that take place may explain how such serious diseases occur. New strategies for combating and treating these diseases can then be made based on this vital information. Therefore, stem cell research has the potential to answer incredibly important questions regarding serious diseases such as cancer and birth defects. Once more information is gained about these diseases; our treatments towards them will change, and in the future, will hopefully be much more effective than they are in our present society.
Another application of pluripotent stem cells is that they could be used to test new drugs. The embryonic stem cells could be cultured, then stimulated to specialise into a particular tissue. If pluripotent stem cells are used, the range of available tissues for testing will be much greater.17 This is because the embryonic stem cells are able to form any type of tissue, even those that would not usually be able to be cultured (such as muscle cells or nerve cells). These cell lines are important for the testing of drugs because they give the opportunity to safely test the drugs’ effects without harming living organisms, to make sure that they are suitable for humans to use. This means that less trialling of drugs would be carried out on humans and animals. For example, steroids can be tested for their various effects on the muscle cells (which are cultured from stem cells). It can then be determined whether these steroids are suitable for human use. The steroids may damage the muscle cells or cause them to become inactive, providing a clear indication that the steroid is not suitable for human use. The use of these tissues as drug testers would be much easier being derived from stem cells. This is because these tissues (particularly muscles and nerves) are hard to isolate from other tissues in the body. It would be much better economically, because money would be saved in finding and using complex methods in which tissues can be isolated. It would be much easier, more economical and simpler to derive the tissues straight from stem cells. This is still not available in the present, as scientists still need better knowledge of the chemical reactions that occur to stimulate and control differentiation. But it is only a matter of time before stem cell research will find a solution to this, providing an easier and cheaper way to test drugs.
Moral and Ethical Issues
Many groups of people in our society are opposed to embryonic stem cell research, because of the ethical and moral issues that arise. These issues arise because stem cell research involves the “tampering with, and destroying of embryos”, which have the potential to develop into human beings. There is no scientific test that can be performed to decide whether or not a blastocyst should be classified as a human being or not. It comes down to an individual’s beliefs and moral reasoning. A number of factors effect a person’s beliefs on this issue, where possible bias can occur. These factors include age, religion, past experiences and upbringing. For some people, a blastocyst is simply a small collection of cells, which is non- living as it is incapable of sustaining life on its own.41 They therefore see it as acceptable to research embryonic stem cells, as they are merely undifferentiated cells. However, some people believe that human life begins at conception. Their moral values therefore state that a blastocyst is a form of human life, as it contains the entire genetic makeup of a person. For example, George Bush once referred to blastocysts as “the seeds of the next generation”. Based on this assumption, the destruction of human embryos could be considered “the killing of innocent life” by some people. Therefore it is easy to see how some people can see stem cell research as being immoral.
There are 2 main procedures in which “early staged embryos” can be sourced. The first and least controversial source is from already existing stem cell lines (from previous experiments). Even those opposing embryonic stem cell research find this source more acceptable, as long as more are not created. This is because these lines have already been created, and there is no possible way of them becoming human life. There is no point in letting them go to waste. If they are not used for research, then eventually they will be left to perish after being defrosted anyway. Either way, they are being actively destroyed. Since they are going to be destroyed one way or another, many people believe that they should be destroyed through research, for the “greater good” of our society. For example, Baylor College (a biomedical scientist) once said that “the tragedy would be in not using these embryos to save lives”. Obviously, College believes that the discarded blastocysts should be used positively, rather than just being discarded.
The second and more controversial source, is from embryos that are left over from IVF (in vitro fertilisation).21 Some people believe that this shows a lack of respect for embryos, and therefore human life. They believe that this devaluation of human life will lead to more significant changes in the future, where the vulnerable are sacrificed to benefit others.21 If we accept this action now, then people believe that in the future, this acceptance could lead to greater tolerance for previously unacceptable actions. For example, the sacrifice of embryos in the present could increase the social tolerance for loss of life. This may change how society views the ending of life of other people in the future. This means that it could be possible for people to be more accepting of the ending of life of elderly or disabled people.21 Other possible scenarios that could arise from embryonic stem cell research are; cloning, embryo farms, or even the use of dead foetuses for “spare” body parts. Many people would consider these unethical, even if they consider embryonic stem cell research moral. While some people believe that these are valid predictions, others would believe that our morals and values would never let this occur.
Another argument against embryonic stem cell research is the fact that advances in adult stem cell research could possibly make it unnecessary. This would avoid the controversial, ethical issues that surround embryonic stem cell research. This statement was sourced from a non-fiction book called “Stem cell Research: The Ethical Issues”. I believe that the statement is quite biased, portrayed in the opinion that adult stem cells are superior. This statement can be debated, as embryonic stem cells have a larger potential, due to their pluripotency (ability to specialise into any cell in the human body). Adult stem cells are limited to only specialising to very few cells. This book did not present both sides of the argument; only the side against embryonic stem cell research. The main reason that this source believed that adult stem cells were superior was because they avoided ethical issues. This book seems to place more emphasis on the ethical issues of embryonic stem cell research than the medical potential of them. This creates a skewed perception that the reader gains towards embryonic stem cells, as they are not provided with all of the facts (only those against embryonic stem cells). Even the title “the ethical issues”, shows that this book’s main focus is to present an argument against embryonic stem cell research and not present a fair and unbiased discussion. Therefore, although adult stem cell research is not prevented by opposition, it is limited in the information it provides. Embryonic stem cell research can provide a lot more information, more efficiently and cost effectively, which can be used to prevent future diseases. These different methods of research both have advantages and disadvantages; however all of these were not shown in the above text.
Differing Views on Stem Cell Research in our society.
Many different factors affect an individual’s values that determine their view on stem cell research. Some of these factors include religion, occupation, knowledge, past experiences and moral upbringing. The combination of these factors will determine an individual’s final viewpoint on stem cell research. There is a very sharp line drawn between those who support stem cell research and those who are against it. Both sides have a conviction that their side is ethically correct.
For Stem Cell Research
There are many reasons that an individual would support stem cell research. Generally, those that support stem cell research do not believe that an embryo can be classified as a human being. Most of these supporters, including many bioethicists, say that the need of sick people should come first.25 A certain bioethicist, Arthur Caplan says: “I’m not going to look at a person in a wheelchair and say, “Sorry, you have to stay in that wheelchair for the rest of your life because of my belief that the frozen embryos in my liquid nitrogen might have become life”.25 This quote is heavily biased, supporting stem cell research, due to this bioethicist’s strong beliefs towards this issue. It is the bioethicist’s job to create an opinion about biological issues that is very well justified. In my opinion, people in other occupations are also going to have strong bias towards this issue. For example, doctors and other medical workers will obviously have a strong opinion on this matter, as the outcome of this continuous debate will directly affect how they will treat patients. In the past, U.S doctors have openly been against Bush’s restrictions on embryonic stem cell research, as they believed that stem cell research is “giving guidance to physicians”. A large number of people in such occupations would support stem cell research, as it would benefit their medical practices, helping them to treat patients far more effectively. As already mentioned, stem cell research has already shown great promise for the improvement of therapeutical practices. For example, the “stem cell therapy” centre in Germany has treated over 4000 people with injuries and illnesses such as spinal cord injuries, and over 80% of patients have shown signs of improvement after therapy. People with jobs in the actual biomedical research facilities are sure to have an even stronger opinion. This is because they could be unlocking the potential medical benefits from stem cells. However, they are being prevented from doing this due to the continuous debate and controversy surrounding the ethics of stem cell research. . As shown in the picture above, personal experience can heavily affect a person’s viewpoint on this issue. Stem cell research would provide hope for this individual, that her daughter could be cured. Therefore, obviously this individual is going to be biased on this issue, as she wishes the best for her daughter.
The political debate that surrounds stem cell research has been very controversial. Many countries do support the research of stem cells, due to the government’s belief that the medical benefits that can be gained outweigh the ethical concerns. The use of stem cells in treatments and research is now present in Belgium, Sweden, China and South Korea; however it is still regularly regulated.26 In the UK, stem cell research for “diabetes” and “motor neuron disease” has been allowed only. Very recently in the USA, Barack Obama has removed restrictions on embryonic stem cell research (that were set by Bush). The leaders of all of these countries must believe that stem cell research does have the potential to have a large impact on our future society. They obviously believe that supporting stem cell research is best for their country. Once again these individual’s viewpoints are affected by their occupations (more specifically their obligations to the people of their country). Economically, more money will be invested into stem cell research in these countries, because the government is supportive of it. This means that these countries will make further progress in various fields of stem cell research, as scientists are able to research more effectively.
Against Stem Cell Research
People that are against stem cell research tend to believe that the destroying of embryos is unethical and immoral. The main reason that such people are against this is because they believe that “life begins at conception”. A person’s belief in this statement is a large factor on how they view this issue. Therefore, people against stem cell research argue that the destruction of embryos is the killing of human life (i.e. murder). George W. Bush is against stem cell research, and restricted it incredibly when he was in presidency. Bush’s decision to restrict stem cell research was because of his belief that embryos were living people that should not be killed for scientific discovery. He once referred to blastocysts as “the seeds of the next generation”. Polls have also shown that many Americans agree with Bush’s stance. Therefore, Bushes beliefs (including his religion), occupation and desire to please his people have caused this bias, hence pushing his decision to restrict stem cell research. Another factor that can cause a difference in beliefs is religion. Once again, they believe that embryos are potential human beings; this is because they believe that “god” has already designed a purpose for every embryo that is destroyed. Thus the embryos must be human. Therefore a person’s beliefs which lead to their viewpoint on stem cell research are heavily influenced by religion. However, a person’s religion does not necessarily determine their viewpoint; there are other factors. For example, a Methodist person may have a child with diabetes. Their will to heal their sick child may overcome their Methodist beliefs.
It is easy to see why people are against stem cell research, when images such as this on to the right are distributed. This image is sourced from “precious life.com”. It is meant to emotionally affect the viewers, because it is making the embryos seem much more lifelike and vulnerable. This is very effectively portraying the idea of how the innocent, possibly human lives are being destroyed. However, in my opinion, not only is this picture biased, it is also inaccurate. Obviously this image is against the research of embryonic stem cells, and the creators must believe that human life “begins at fertilisation” to have this viewpoint, causing the bias. This image is inaccurate because it gives the viewer the idea that actual living babies are being harmed. This is not the case, as it is embryos that are destroyed, which are completely different to babies. It is misleading the viewer, hence it is inaccurate, and therefore I believe that it is invalid.
Evaluation
The majority of the sources that I have used to provide information have been reasonably valid. This is because the information that I gained on these sites has been based on scientific fact. These sites have all been quite high profile; one is a resource from the “National Institutes of Health”, one is from the University of Utah and the other 2 are world famous websites (“Wikipedia” and “New Scientist”) The “National Institute of Health” site also ends in “.govt”, meaning it is a government run site, thus it must provide factual, reviewed information. They are all informative scientific sites that would be reviewed by other people, for possible bias or incorrect information. Also, being reviewed by other people means that the chances of the sites having incorrect and biased information are greatly reduced. All information in most of these sites (especially Wikipedia) is referenced fully, to prove to the readers that the facts used are not fictitious and are accurate. Therefore, these sites are mainly unbiased on this issue and come from trustworthy and factual sites; thus the information gained from them is valid.
However, Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, so for a very short period of time, it can be unreliable. However it is constantly reviewed and any incorrect information will not be on the website for too long. Therefore, to ensure the information that I have used is valid, I have double checked all information used from Wikipedia by checking the reference websites at the bottom of the page. I then cross referenced all information that I had used with the reference sites, to ensure that all information that was reported on Wikipedia was true. By checking more than one site, I have greatly increased the likelihood that the information I have used is valid and factual. Also, the site that I sourced the picture of the” medical potentials of stem cells” from was far less valid. It was merely a “blog” website that contained lots of biased comments that supported stem cell research. Because it was also not a very reputable source, with no peer reviews, references or scientific facts, its information would not have been as valid. Its information was based more on opinion than on actual fact. Hence this source was invalid and biased; therefore I did not use any information (only the picture).
A book that I sourced information from (Don Nardo (2008), Cure Quest: The Science of Stem Cell Research), is also biased towards this issue. This is because it focuses mainly on only the positive aspects of stem cell research. The ethical issue of the research of stem cells is used only as a rebuttal, and is later negated and pushed aside. Once again, the bias of this book is obvious in its title. “Cure Quest” is stating that the research of stem cells is the solution for many diseases. This book does still contain “valid” scientific information, as many facts used are referenced, and the book’s publishers would not allow false information to be printed. However, this information is shown to support only one side of this argument, thus resulting in bias. I made sure that when I used information from this book, I presented both sides of the argument, and did not favour one side, trying to display the information in an unbiased way.
My Personal Opinion
Personally, I would side with those people who support stem cell research, as I believe that sick, living human beings should be our priority. Personally, I do not believe that the “blastocysts” can be referred to as human life. They cannot sustain life on their own41; they have no heart, no brain and no nerves. They can’t think, feel or move. If restrictions were made to protect these embryos, millions of patients would suffer needlessly. Embryos are also routinely discarded after IVF procedures.18 I believe that this is a waste, as they could be used to improve and extend life of living people. Stem cell research could help millions of people living with incurable diseases. Diseases and injuries range from diabetes to heart conditions to Alzheimer's to Parkinson's, and even spinal cord injury.12 I believe that the benefits far exceed the harm in this case. To get as much information as possible to combat disease, I believe all 3 types of stem cells should continue to be tested in the present. This is because they all have their advantages and disadvantages (as earlier explained), and all have the potential to have an impact on the treatment of sick patients. However, in the future, I believe that induced pluripotent stem cells hold the most potential. This is because they have the advantages of both adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells. They are pluripotent, and they avoid all of the moral obligations that embryonic stem cells have. 29Also, in terms of medical therapies, they have a much lower chance of being rejected from the body, as they are derived from the patient’s own body cells. 29 However, there is still not a lot of information known about iPS cells yet; there could be genetic problems with them (such as the potential to develop into tumours). It is therefore important to research them further, to gain a better knowledge of them. In the mean time, the research of the other stem cells should continue, as they have already demonstrated very practical applications, and no-one knows how each of them could affect us in the future. Therefore, I firmly believe that we should continue our research into all types of stem cells, as information gained could impact millions of lives. Only time will tell what this stem cell research will yield for us in the future.
Josh Smith
www.merck.com/mmhe/print/sec16/ch187h.html
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/stemcells/index.html?8qa
Andrew Solway (2007), Genetics in Medicine, Sydney
Joseph Panno (2004), Stem Cell Research; Medical Applications and ethical controversy
http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics2.asp
http://www.scq.ubc.ca/changing-the-language-of-dna/
http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/02/16/15969.aspx
http://www.stem.com/stem-cell-facts/potency-of-stem-cells/
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9982-introduction-stem-cells.html?page=2
http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/tech/stemcells/sctoday/
http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics4.asp
http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics5.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hematopoietic_stem_cell_transplantation#Peripheral_blood_stem_cells
http://www.cancer.org/Treatment/TreatmentsandSideEffects/TreatmentTypes/BoneMarrowandPeripheralBloodStemCellTransplant/stem-cell-transplant-stem-cell-sources
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hematopoietic_stem_cell_transplantation#Peripheral_blood_stem_cells
http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics4.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryonic_stem_cell
http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics3.asp
Image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryonic_stem_cel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryonic_stem_cell#Techniques_and_Conditions_for_Embryonic_Stem_Cell_Derivation_and_Culture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell_controversy
Andrew Solway (2007), Genetics in Medicine, Sydney
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_policy_of_the_George_W._Bush_administration#Stem_cell_research
http://robby.nstemp.com/photo6.html
http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics5.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_pluripotent_stem_cell#Human_induced_pluripotent_stem_cells
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8370692532177471184#
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8370692532177471184#
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_pluripotent_stem_cell
http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/reprogrammed_stem_cells.html
http://www.allthingsstemcell.com/2009/06/induced-pluripotent-stem-cells-a-new-stem-cell-line-with-a-long-history/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telomere#Systemic_telomere_length_and_aging
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senescence
http://blogs.nature.com/andrewsun/2007/08/
http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics6.asp
http://www.themedguru.com/20100119/newsfeature/stem-cell-therapy-treat-leukemia-86131861.html
http://www.sci-recovery.org/stem1.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell_treatments#Current_treatments
http://www.xcell-center.com/?gclid=CPHGgIzV8KcCFQoTbAod3iz1aQ
http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics6.asp
http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics6.asp
Andrew Solway (2007), Genetics in Medicine, Sydney
www.isscr.org/public/ethics.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/resstemover1.htm
http://pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethics/Quotes-on-Stem-Cell-Research-from-Political,-Religious-and-Other-Prominent-Figures.aspx
http://www.nowpublic.com/world/does-stem-cell-decision-amount-killing-innocent-life
http://www.eurostemcell.org/files/Hug_Medicina%20(Kaunas)%202005;%2041(12).pdf
http://www.crosswalk.com/news/for-the-greater-good-the-problem-of-stem-cells-11636973.html?ps=0
http://www.wistemcellnow.org/testimonials/
http://www.eurostemcell.org/files/Hug_Medicina%20(Kaunas)%202005;%2041(12).pdf
Wiley Blackwell (2007), Stem cell research: The ethical Issues
Don Nardo (2008), Cure Quest: The Science of Stem Cell Research
(Image is from the same book).
http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/6-19-2003-41871.asp
http://www.xcell-center.com/?gclid=CPHGgIzV8KcCFQoTbAod3iz1aQ
Don Nardo (2008), Cure Quest: The Science of Stem Cell Research
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9982-introduction-stem-cells.html?page=2
27- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/4960750/Barack-Obama-to-reverse-George-Bushs-stem-cell-funding-ban.html
http://www.religioustolerance.org/resstemover1.htm
Don Nardo (2008), Cure Quest: The Science of Stem Cell Research