Stem Cell Research ControversiesEssay Preview: Stem Cell Research ControversiesReport this essayStem cells are “blank” cells that have the potential to develop into any type of cell in the body — nerve cells, heart cells, kidney cells. Scientists are trying to harvest the cells before they have differentiated, then coax them into becoming certain types. If they could grow cardiac cells, for instance, scientists one day might be able to replace damaged heart tissue in someone who has had a heart attack. By growing nerve cells they might be able to repair brain cells damaged by Alzheimers or Parkinsons, or replace injured spinal cord cells in a paraplegic.
Stem cells have two important characteristics that distinguish them from other types of cells. First, they are unspecialized cells that renew themselves for long periods through cell division. The second is that under certain physiologic or experimental conditions, they can be induced to become cells with special functions, such as the beating cells of the heart muscle or the insulin-producing cells of the pancreas. Scientists primarily work with two kinds of stem cells from animals and humans: embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells. There are many ways in which human stem cells can be used in basic research and in clinical research. Studies of human embryonic stem cells may yield information about the complex events that occur during human development. Stem cells can also be used to test new drugs. Perhaps the most important potential application of human stem cells is the generation of cells and tissues that could be used for cell-based therapies. Today, donated organs and tissues are often used to replace ailing or destroyed tissue.
Since the onset of stem cell research has been established, many controversial issues have arisen. The debate over stem-cell research may be one of the most important in modern society. On the one side are those who believe that it holds out the promise to cure, or at least relieve, some of humanitys most terrible diseases. On the other side are those who insist that stem cells can only be collected by killing embryos — by murder. Before 1998, research on stem cells-mostly from non-controversial sources such as bone marrow and umbilical cord blood-was framed in highly technical terms, focusing on the release of the latest scientific findings or emphasizing the details of funding and applications of research. These technical dimensions, while important, dont touch on political emotions or grab much attention. When the discovery of human embryonic stem cells was announced in 1998, research
to be supported into the field began in earnest. It was a very high-profile issue, with a big prize. In 2006, NIH announced the creation of the Society of Learned E.coli to support stem cell research and other research into neural tissue and brain development. A similar program was started in 2006 by a Swedish biomedical startup, K3B-S3. In 2007, Nobel Laureate Nobel Award Winning Scientist, Svetlana Shkreli-Golod and other recipients decided to do the same by giving money to support a major research project on stem cells in the United States using brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) in order to support brain development. The project, called ‘Ancillary Research on Human Development’, had been running since 2003. The researchers were not happy with the amount of money from such an important international foundation. But with their own team, they could keep on expanding, with their own team, in order to build on the success story of A1-type human embryonic stem cell research. As a result, the NIH awarded a total of US$6.8 million by 2008. This was the highest ever spent on a such program in the United States.
A team from NIH, the New England Bioengineering Laboratory and the Stanford Research Institute have spent over $60 million from 2010–2016 to date. http://news.sciencemag.org/articles/npr404326
This isn’t really a small contribution, but as an idea it deserves to be heard. The research would’ve done quite nicely if it could keep up with the big breakthroughs of earlier research. This is not a big step up for the next big breakthroughs in neural tissue & #8212; the development of new devices that can mimic the brain. This would allow to test a new cell-based therapeutic for Alzheimers, but wouldn’t necessarily be like the one that we get from the original breakthrough. As you can see in the chart above, this is exactly the situation most people are talking about here. So when it comes to human embryonic stem cell research, not a lot of attention is paid to what they are doing, and the research hasn’t been done quite as well, as I explained before. So why are they doing this anyway? 1) They are very active in academia to get the money to fund research on these interesting diseases and there is some funding from the government. 2) Also, they receive huge funding from research companies such can also pay for research in pharmaceuticals. It’s a very important position on the top of the list so we have to make a big statement against this kind of funding, and against the idea that a new type of stem cell research needs to come before a new type of biologic to do anything other than enhance humanity’s health. It’s a huge win for the scientific community there. 3) Although it’s not clear why the US government started to fund these studies, they could have gotten much larger. Because it’s not clear why a US government grant didn’t get much bigger. 4) Since there are many of them, many different people involved, what we want is only one person working to make people aware about things that are happening in human life and not to only inform the public. That person is Svetlana Shkreli-Golod…
This is more or less the same:
> From the very beginning of brain development, there were different types of cells to choose from. It all began with the discovery of