Final

If one knows anything about stem-cell research, there is bound to be an opinion on the subject. This topic has been in the media spotlight on and off since 1998. Celebrities such as Michael J. Fox and the late Christopher Reeve sing stem-cell’s praises, whereas others such as Mel Gibson and John Travolta warn of its ethical downfalls. No matter what the opinion, after the facts are presented, a strong opinion either way is common. There are many people such as celebrities, scientists, and the everyday news-watcher who oppose of stem cell research because of the use of a fertilized egg (embryo). The benefits of this breakthrough section of the research world in every way, both economic and medical, far outweigh the risks. Knowing what stem-cell research is and what it entails is important to supporting or opposing it. Stem-cells are researched for use to cure many debilitating diseases eventually and Human Fertilized Embryo to help heal many spinal injuries. There are two types of stem-cells. Embryonic stem-cells ar BLASTOCYTE------( (---STEM CELL taken from a three to five day fertilized embryo, or blastocyte that only consists of about 200 cells (--EMBRYO (Brainard, 2004). In the diagram at the right, the pink is the embryo, the purple are the stem-cells that are extracted from the blastocyte, in the red. Embryonic stem-cells are what are commonly used in the positive treatments of new cell-lines, which are what is frozen, studied, multiplied, and injected during stem-cell treatment. Embryonic stem-cells have the capability of eventually being turned into all of the 200 types of cells in the human body. Adult stem cells are taken from the human adult body, and are fully matured cells. These adult cells are hard to isolate and grow for research purposes. Scientists do not have to harvest embryos for this research process. Most research using adult stem-cells has been started with blood-forming cells, which is the best studied adult stem-cell because of its semi-simple makeup. Stem-cell research has been going on for at least 46 years. In 1964 while researching cancer, scientists noticed that a single cell could be isolated (“Is Stem Cell Research Ethical'” 2008.) In 1981, the first embryonic stem-cells were isolated from mouse embryos (“Is Stem Cell Research Ethical'” 2008.) In 1998, scientist James Thompson at University of Wisconsin, Madison, found a way to grow stem-cells from embryos (“Is Stem Cell Research Ethical'” 2008.) The economic benefit of stem-cell research profit-wise, will be presented using tax revenues, employment revenues, and money saving strategy. If stem-cell research takes off and eventually becomes common practice, less money will have to be spent on health-care for those with debilitating and expensive diseases such as Parkinson’s and diabetes. Timothy Caulfield counters, “Unlike … pharmaceuticals, which has clearly commercializable and marketable products, it may be difficult to build a large industry around stem-cell technologies” (Caulfield, pg. 3, 2010). The l stem-cells themselves are actually the marketable item, which may not be clearly visible, but are injectable, just like some common medicines. Certain states’ policies, naming California’s Prop 71, and Texas’ study published in 2009 for the Alliance for Medical Research Houston as the best known, outline the profit that can be made and the jobs that can be created with stem-cell research. Proposition 71 in modest scenarios provides state profit and savings on medical bills at around $9.5 billion (Caulfield, 2010). A study on the economic gain for stem-cell research shows the generation of $88 billion and $1.3 billion in taxes earned (Caulfield, 2010). Timothy Caulfield states in his symposium about the economic pressure pressed on stem-cell research, “One would almost think that embryonic stem-cells could be directly injected into a stagnant economy to make it young and healthy again” (Caulfield, pg. 3, 2010). Although this is not true, the picture it paints could be accurate. Sometimes a stagnant economy needs a big boost with something that could be considered taboo by some because of the supporters of the same cause. People who are anti-stem cell research defend that it would take too long to come up with financial gain. Testing and proof needs to back up medical testing that should be done, and although the topic is hot in the media, this does not excuse protocol for FDA approval. The economic benefit of stem-cell research where jobs are concerned will be presented using research and development. No economic gains can be achieved without finding an angle or category of stem-cells that are profitable. In-depth research and clinical trials are definitely required for such huge medical developments. This means the employed researchers, marketers, and even people in charge of the maintenance and accounting of labs have job security because of the length of time this kind of research takes. Rebecca Dressor argues that economic benefits are not guaranteed, and that economic promise has little to do with the benefits of stem-cell research. She also believes more of an ethical stand needs taken (Dresser, 2009). A study on the potential for economic gain done in Texas states that it has “the potential to support more than 230,000 jobs …,” and in New Jersey, “…close to 20,000 new jobs,” (Caulfield, pg. 4, 2010). That is a quarter of a million jobs in two states, which would continue to help an already struggling economy. Even if the projection is a little exaggerated, it is economic development, which seems to be more difficult presently. The International Society for Stem-Cell Research had a booming attendance increase from 700 in 2003, to 1,400 in 2004, doubling to more than 3,000 in 2008 (Dresser, 2009). This shows that stem-cell research is becoming increasingly more common, and that more scientists, researchers, and possible investors are willing to work toward cures in the years to come. The medical benefits that could come from stem-cell research are amazing, relevant, and within reach of accomplishing. Stem-cell research brings promise that scientists may learn more about why diseases start and how to prevent or cure them (Dresser, 2009). Recently, research has shown that autologus (coming from oneself) brain-tied umbilical cord blood cells, when injected intravenously to the brain monthly for three months to a “brain-dead” child can provide enough neural stimulation to create new brain cells. It was said to bring the research subject out of a persistent vegetative state to one more coherent and capable. The child responded to his mother’s voice by smiling and also responded to music and lights (“Cell Medicine,” 2010). Below is a picture of Amanda Overby’s son Gabriel, a child who is living with a debilitating brain illness called Hydranencephaly. Hydranencephaly is an affliction in which both cerebral hemispheres of the brain are replaced by sacs of Cerebrospinal Fluid, or CSF. He is said to be in a persistent vegetative state, but he is coherent, eats regularly, and can move on his own. Stem-cell treatments would be well-suited for him if research would allow. Stem cells are not something that is immediately marketable as a medicine, but in the This 10-month old boy has a disease called hydranencephaly, which is when the cerebral hemispheres of the brain are replaced with sacs of fluid. Stem-cell research could eventually find a way to recreate these brain-cells, improving his condition. (Gabriel Overby, 2010) future will definitely be of assistance to some. If an infant’s cord blood is banked, it is essentially that infant’s own stem-cell savings account. Many parents of disabled children would have, and will benefit from this advancement. This is not even to mention adults with disabilities and not inborn brain damage patients. Anne Underwood states that in 2010, 130,000 people worldwide will suffer from spinal-cord injuries in car accidents, falls, or other violent acts and almost 90% will suffer from partial paralysis (Underwood, 2009). These are staggering numbers to imagine, not including children and adults who are born and live this way. Stem-cells could help virtually any debilitating disease with rebuilding of cells, including but not limited to: diabetes, Parkinson’s, Lou Gherig’s disease, brain damage, hydranencephaly, paralysis, Cerebral Palsy, and Bell’s Palsy. Some say the push for profit is rushing biomedical researchers to come up with over positive and beefed up results to testing. FDA testing is scrutinized closely, and although medical advances may take a while, they are reachable, attainable, and easily proved through testing. The ethical standpoint of stem-cell research is the most controversial but also the most commonly misconstrued. People who oppose stem cell research counter that all human life is precious. This is true, and human life should not be discarded so indifferently as to carelessly kill babies. Blastocytes are cells from embryos consisting of only 200 cells. A common misconception is that fetuses are used in stem cell research. Fetuses are fertilized eggs that are eight weeks old, while the blastocytes used in stem-cell research are only 3-5 days fertilized. If people who oppose stem cell research could realize that steps can be taken to ensure ethical practice is used, it would be more accepted. Bill Frist, the Senate house majority until 2003, stated, “We need to allow … research using on those embryonic stem-cells… that are left over after in vitro fertilization and would otherwise be discarded” (Frist, pg. 1, 2009). If only cells destined for discard were to be used, the senseless harvesting of embryos just for research would cease. The ethical and economic pull that stem-cell research has put on main-stream America is hard-hitting. Many people do not understand the whole process behind the harvest of stem-cell research. The fertilized embryo is three to five days old when harvested, where it has been portrayed that fetuses were destroyed for this research. Many embryos that have the stem-cells extracted were those destined for destruction. This is because they are leftover fertilized embryos from in vitro fertilization. U.S. Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah July 23, 2006, says, "I understand that many have ethical and moral reservations about stem cell research, but for the same reason I describe myself as pro-life, I embrace embryonic stem cell research because I believe being pro-life is not only caring for the unborn but also caring for the living." (Hatch, 2010). References Brainard, J. (2004, October 1). Stem Cell Research Moves Forward Chronicle of Higher Education, 61(6), A22. Retrieved from ehis.ebscohost.com. Caulfield, T. (2010, Summer). Stem Cell Research and Economic Promises. Journal of Law, Medicine, and Ethics, 38(2), pages 1-6. Retrieved from ehis.ebscohost.com. “Cell Medicine.” (2010). Dresser, R. (2010, Summer). Stem Cell Research as Innovation: Expanding the Ethical and Policy Conversation. Journal of Law, Medicine, and Ethics, 38(2), pages 1-20. Retrieved from ehis.ebscohost.com. Frist, B. (2009). Human Embryos Destined for Discard Should Be Used for Research. In L.I. Gerdes (Ed.), Opposing Viewpoints. Genetic Engineering. San Diego: Greenhaven Press. Retrieved from ic.galegroup.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/ic/ovic/Viewpoints DetailsPage Hatch, O. (July 23, 2006). CBS Evening News. Broadcast July 23, 2006 "Is Stem Cell Research Ethical'" (2008). In V. Wagner (Ed.), Opposing Viewpoints. Biomedical Ethics. Detroit: Greenhaven Press. Retrieved from http://ic.galegroup.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com Underwood, A. (August 3, 2009). Stem-cell Breakthrough. Newsweek, Volume 154 (Issue 5). Retrieved from ehis.ebscohost.com.