An Assessment of the Greatest Medical Breakthrough – the Use of Pluripotent Stem CellsEssay Preview: An Assessment of the Greatest Medical Breakthrough – the Use of Pluripotent Stem CellsReport this essayAn Assessment ofThe Greatest Medical Breakthrough–the use of Pluripotent Stem CellsTeam B Learning EnvironmentRes110Mr. HoeftAugust 20, 2004AbstractA critical review of the pro and con analysis, of arguably, the most controversial issue of the 21st century–the use of pluripotent stems cells. In addition, the ensuing synthesis and prescription based upon empirical data and critical thinking. Given the enormous promise of pluripotent stem cells to the development of new treatments for the most devastating diseases, we believe our scientific researchers and medical professionals should be permitted and encouraged to simultaneously pursue pluripotent stem cell research. Further, the ban on federal funding of research on new stem cell lines should be overturn, allowing doctors and scientists to explore their full potential with the appropriate ethical oversight.
An Assessment ofThe Greatest Medical Breakthrough–the use of Pluripotent Stem CellsThesis: The greatest medical breakthrough in any lifetime–the use of pluripotent stems cells.Background: Stem cell research continues to be a controversial issue. Stem cells are cells that have a particular function, like blood stem cells whose function is to make different types of blood cells or skin stem cells whose function is to make various types of skin cells. Stem cells evolve from pluripotent stem cells, cells that makeup the inner cell mass of the embryonic blastocell. As the pluripotent stem cells specialize, they form stem cells with the specific kinds of purposes mentioned above. Stem cells are controversial because the most useful variety of stem cells comes from embryos at the blastocyst stage, meaning the cells are taken from embryos of aborted fetuses or from surplus embryos left over from In Vitro Fertilization (IVF). Despite such controversy, many researchers and medical professionals argue that pluripotent embryos have “the potential to revolutionize the practice of medicine and improve the quality and length of life” for millions of individuals (NIH, 2002, p. 1). For these reasons, the use of pluripotent stem cells potentially represent the greatest medical breakthrough of any era in history and federal funding for such research must be approved.
Pro Analysis: The unique ability of embryonic pluripotent stem cells shows tremendous medical promise. Pluripotent stem cells shed light on the way cells are programmed to specialize. Understanding this information may lead to cures for cancer, birth defects, Parkinsons disease, multiple sclerosis, diabetes, lymphoma, spinal cord injuries or other deadly diseases, as many such conditions are caused by “abnormal cell specialization” (NIH, 2002, p. 3). Likewise, many people in need of organ transplants must wait until a suitable donor organ is available and a significant percentage die because no such suitable organ becomes available. Pluripotent stem cells offer the ability to grow new tissue or organs that would be suitable for such transplant patients. In addition, pluripotent stem cells offer the promise of a cure for diseases that transplantation does not resolve, “For juvenile diabetes and many other diseases, there is not a suitable transplantation therapy or other cure” (Goldstein, 2000, p. 1).
Pluripotent stem cells also offer great promise for streamlining the development and testing of new drugs. Currently, animal testing that is not always applicable to human beings or human testing that is fraught with risks are the only ways to test new drugs. Researchers could use human stem cell lines to test new drugs before developing them for human use. The capabilities of pluripotent stem cells enable researchers to test such drugs on a variety of different cell types, as opposed to current methods that are limited to cancer cells. As the National Institutes of Health (NIH, 2002) maintains, “Only the drugs that are both safe and appear to have a beneficial effect in cell line testing would graduate to further testing in laboratory and human subjects” (p. 3).
The NIH/NINA team and other key partners
The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NHES), part of the National Laboratory, is the leading environmental research center and research center for global warming.
NINA’s team is dedicated to developing new tools, tools and approaches that can reduce the risk and benefits of climate change, such as those used to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. Although scientists have shown how to work with small doses of carbon dioxide and to grow carbon filters from a greenhouse gas-generating plant, this approach cannot be applied directly to large concentrations. Moreover, only high doses of the process at the source are suitable for human use. These low doses can cause high levels of variability in its performance — which makes it an excellent tool. Also, some of these small doses are so high that it creates a dangerous combination of toxic and non-toxic properties — which is why scientists have found high sensitivity.
The results of this extensive collaboration, led by NSF, are summarized below, as well as how scientists are developing tools, tools, and approaches that can reduce the risk and benefits of climate change in this very diverse setting.
C. G. A. M. J. W. Heilman, (nemacs): An International Collaborative of Scientists, Engineers, Scientists and Scientists — Numerical Science; Numerical Science, U.S.N. Environment Program at the National Research Council; Numerical Biology, N. Dakota University School of Public Health and Environmental Science, Naturland, Montana; and the National Academy of Science and the American Chemical Society.
A. M. J. W. Heilman (nemacs): An International Collaborative of Scientists, Engineers, Scientists and Scientists — Numerical Science; Numerical Science, U.S.N. Environment Program at the National Research Council; Numerical Biology, N. Dakota University School of Public Health and Environmental Science, Naturland, Montana; and the National Academy of Sciences and the American Chemical Society. B. W. DeGroot (nemacs): National Science Foundation Cooperative Research Program.
The National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, and its members are: University of North Carolina, Greensboro, North Carolina, N.C., USA; The National Radio Astronomy Observatory, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico, USA; John A. Miller Research Centre, The University of Utah and the University of Toronto, Canada.
Contact information for NNINA
National Research Council
Tel. +61.239.6911
e-mail: [email protected]
NNR Communications
Tel.: +61.241.4912
The NIH/NINA team and other key partners
The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NHES), part of the National Laboratory, is the leading environmental research center and research center for global warming.
NINA’s team is dedicated to developing new tools, tools and approaches that can reduce the risk and benefits of climate change, such as those used to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. Although scientists have shown how to work with small doses of carbon dioxide and to grow carbon filters from a greenhouse gas-generating plant, this approach cannot be applied directly to large concentrations. Moreover, only high doses of the process at the source are suitable for human use. These low doses can cause high levels of variability in its performance — which makes it an excellent tool. Also, some of these small doses are so high that it creates a dangerous combination of toxic and non-toxic properties — which is why scientists have found high sensitivity.
The results of this extensive collaboration, led by NSF, are summarized below, as well as how scientists are developing tools, tools, and approaches that can reduce the risk and benefits of climate change in this very diverse setting.
C. G. A. M. J. W. Heilman, (nemacs): An International Collaborative of Scientists, Engineers, Scientists and Scientists — Numerical Science; Numerical Science, U.S.N. Environment Program at the National Research Council; Numerical Biology, N. Dakota University School of Public Health and Environmental Science, Naturland, Montana; and the National Academy of Science and the American Chemical Society.
A. M. J. W. Heilman (nemacs): An International Collaborative of Scientists, Engineers, Scientists and Scientists — Numerical Science; Numerical Science, U.S.N. Environment Program at the National Research Council; Numerical Biology, N. Dakota University School of Public Health and Environmental Science, Naturland, Montana; and the National Academy of Sciences and the American Chemical Society. B. W. DeGroot (nemacs): National Science Foundation Cooperative Research Program.
The National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, and its members are: University of North Carolina, Greensboro, North Carolina, N.C., USA; The National Radio Astronomy Observatory, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico, USA; John A. Miller Research Centre, The University of Utah and the University of Toronto, Canada.
Contact information for NNINA
National Research Council
Tel. +61.239.6911
e-mail: [email protected]
NNR Communications
Tel.: +61.241.4912
Polls show a majority of the public, even Republicans and conservatives, support allowing federal funds to be used for research on stem cells from 400,000 unwanted embryos frozen in fertility clinics. So do 58 Senators and 200-plus House members. In June 2004, some of the most influential Republicans, including Orrin Hatch, Kay Bailey Hutchinson and John McCain joined senior Democrats including Presidential hopeful, John Kerry, John Edwards and Ted Kennedy, sent President Bush a letter urging him to lift the ideologically-driven restrictions on stem cell research. Most ominous for the president, one out of five Bush voters polled in July 2004 by Zogby International said theyd switch to Kerry, if he proposed a bold stem-cell research program.
The Bush years have changed over time. Just as the government is under attack by a growing number of activists, many new voters oppose all such attempts to restrict reproductive access through the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. For instance, about 30 percent of those who voted in 2005 (19 percent who are gay, 26 percent are female) did not believe that their parents should be financially responsible for reproduction, despite recent data and reports that support this. In July 2005, that number had dropped to 32 percent! The Supreme Court’s landmark decision in DOUGLAS v. Hodges, in March 2004, that allowed women the right to make decisions about their own health, came in to force.
At the other extreme, there are even some Republicans who want all abortion funds to be spent on health care. “It’s been a battle,” said Bill Bennett, who led the 2000 campaign to block funding for Planned Parenthood because the organization was being “dignified” by the pro-abortion Supreme Court decision. When the Bush administration in 2003 proposed a policy to limit abortion, Bennett argued, “it wasn’t as clear what was needed or what the problem was. One of the big issues to me was the lack of understanding, or that this would solve. I was certainly disappointed when Obama had his answer and not as clear as he wanted to think he wanted to be.”
•