Stemming of the Stem Cell
For the first time in his presidency, President George W Bush made a historic veto last July 19th murdering the hopes of further development from the stem cell technology. The terminated bill was aimed at lifting the ban on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research that President Bush himself levied in 2001.
The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act was unanimously voted by both the Senate and the House of Representatives, but both chambers dropped short of the two thirds vote that could have overturned Bush's veto power. Having an argument on grounds of social morals, the veto in the president was already been expected. Bush has always been vocal in his stand against embryonic stem cell research and the technology that uses human embryos in attempting to develop miracle cures for terminal diseases.
Together with the veto, President Bush gained a wider support floor among the conservative Republicans and the many innovative religious and conservative advocacy groups. Disappointment and frustrations, on the flip side, escalated one of the seculars and liberals.
The problem has been living in the highest offices of the country but many common Americans remain unaware on what is the real deal about stem cell. The only message that the authorities and other concerned parties are sending into this social base is the potential of stem cell to heal terminal diseases. Insufficient understanding on how stem cell can attain this potential and its own political, social, and spiritual underpinnings is being made available to the huge public which at the end of the day is at the receiving end of any laws.
In a very lengthy conversation I had with a cousin who teaches Biology, I came to understand stem cells are cells of the body which are at their very early phase of development and aren't yet designed to perform very specific functions. Unlike brain tissues that maynot replace the functions of the heart cells, stem cells could be manufactured and assigned to perform whatever purpose. This characteristic is apparently what is seen by specialists to be million-years missing connection to solving acute body and organ malfunctions.
Scientists and researchers state that by focusing on the unspecialized nature of stem cells, demonstrating mechanisms could be done to turn these stem cells into a certain type of cell to be used to replace damaged cells of an organ. This assumption claims stem cells to be the repair kits especially to ailments that are presently difficult to solve like heart problems, diabetes, and spinal column harms, Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease. On a scholastic notice, stem cell technologies advocates argue that by exploring the numerous possibilities of stem cells, humanity will achieve a greater understanding on how diseases develop from the cell and tissue level.
It sounds perfectly fine and enormously beneficial, so what's the fuss about? As I had been (objectively I trust) told, the controversy is rooted from the simple fact that the most workable stem cells are out of the cells of an embryo. Applied in human circumstance, it's the human embryo-- the outset of life, something we people cannot alter or infringe on (as societal and ethical constructs taught us).
And when ethics and morals are in the film, politics can't be missing. Given the numerous analyses, see points, and opposition coming from organized religions and classes, governments of countries where stem cell research are existing are placed in an extremely stressful tipping point. With pragmatic, radical promises colliding with instituted social beliefs and moral convictions, authorities are in the mercy of exclusive polars. A solid support base is the thing that keeps a government living (and a president popular). If most the people are secular, damaging their beliefs will not perform a government any good. However, what about the national interest in advancement and advancement? And thus the discussion ensues.
Much more issues arise from stem cell. Should further studies be chased and developed into technologies? Should currently accepted stem cell procedures be widened? If we be contented with adult stem cells liver more about embryos? Should stem cell research and technology be financed by the state? Where do we draw the line between morals and restraint?
To constructively engage in the issue, I argue in favor of the stem cell assistants. The religious opposition some businesses have isn't something new to be so alarmed about. They had exactly the exact same stance about divorce, about euthanasia, and even about warfare. Yes, their opposition is a necessary element given that we're (ideally) in democratic society in which multi standpoint political stands are distinguished. However, their opposition must not in any way be the turning point of the fate of any attempt to advance human knowledge, particularly if they (the anti-stem mobile groups) or their loved ones may benefit out of it. Issues like the fraud and embezzlement of South Korea's Hwang Woo-suk are valid and worth the scrutiny it deserves. However, basically, the episode is not in any way indicative of the follies of stem cell technology.
Get to know more about More about stem cell research
Visit : https://www.tebu-bio.com/blog/2017/04/21/pluripotent-stem-cells-and-ipsc-research-quality-and-innovative-products-to-boost-your-project/