User:AWimbishFall2019/sandbox

Ethicality & History Regarding Embryonic Stem Cell Usage
Embryonic stem cells (ESCs) are stem cells derived from the undifferentiated inner mass cells of a human embryo. In 2001, the US restricted use of human embryonic stem cells citing its use as illegal, unethical, and unnecessary. Specifically in research where embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death. However, in other countries (Greece, Sweden, Spain and the United Kingdom), They have created the legal basis to support this Embryonic research, by making federal research facilities and councils to overlook and regulate the use and research of this sort. Currently stem cell use in the US is restricted to bone marrow and spinal fluid, with no approved treatments for other diseases, though stem cells could help so many other illnesses. While somatic (adult) stem cells are an option for some, embryonic stem cells are a better choice in medical care because embryonic stem cells can divide and become any cell within the body, while somatic stem cells have to be taken and placed in the same region of the body and are less likely & less effective to heal ailments. Though ethical concern, the use of embryonic stem cells can become an option to treat chronic growing diseases that are detrimental to our society such as spinal cord injury and disease (such as ALS), strokes, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, treatment and cures of cancers, diabetes, and fixing muscular ailments such as Muscular Dystrophy.

The debate surrounding such research plays out in somewhat of morality and traditionality culture war many americans are all toofamiliar with. The United States, as a society,  goes through fundamental deliberation constantly - it's why America as a society move from past traditional values towards a modern better society - it’s why women are no longer forced to stay home-bound and uneducated and why many no longer see cigarettes as healthy. As a collective move towards what is best for the people in our society; always a move of religious ethicality v.s. sensibility, traditionalism v.s. progression, and old v.s. new; Many , hopefully, will always be on the side of the latter. Today, amongst other modern debates, Americans as a collective face the choice whether to tread forward with embryonic stem cell research or to let our fear of modernization stifle growth to a society were diseases that devastate us in mass , are made curable antiquated things of the past. Stem cell research today is limited to that of somatic stem cells, bone marrow, and spinal fluid. This is a small step in the right direction however somatic stem cells, adult cells, are already fully grown. With this they can only be placed in the same part of the body they were taken from, also there is little chance they will grow in a new host and promote healthy cell regeneration. Bone marrow is only useful in bone marrow transplant, as with spinal fluid only being useful in spinal injury resulting in paralysis, both having small chances of success and high risk for rejection. Embryonic stem cells fixes the whole of these issues. Because embryos are in the greatest time period of cell growth, they are most likely to divide with no further coercion, when placed they can form into ANY cell in the human body (any of the more than 220 cell types in the human body*) -lowering the chance of rejection-; Embryonic Stem Cells have the capacity to heal parts of the human system that for a time were untreatable , such as muscle ailments (such as of the heart, since heart transplants are not yet possible), pancreatic illnesses, brain diseases/deterioration, and cancers.(Marsa, 1) There’s nothing closer to the gut wrenching feeling of hearing a loved one is diagnosed with is terminal and has no cure ; knowing the only path ahead is painful treatments, and back and forth with doctors that only give an extra year -if lucky- of life. Embryonic stem cells are the next logical step in society to extend and better the quality of human life.

In 2004 on the stage of American scrutiny and public opinion, the case for stem cell research funding was debated. Christopher Reeve, famously known for his portrayal of Superman in the original motion pictures, became a main crusader and activist for E.S.C. research despite this controversy after a motorcycle accident in 1995 that left him paralyzed from the neck down. Him and others fought tirelessly to protect the legitimate promising effect stem cells could have for not only the U.S., but for the entire world. Our Superman died in 2004 -never seeing the ruling of his real fight for good- and two years later, during George W. Bush’s 2006 term, in an unprecedented veto, Bush banned the use of human embryos in research for fear of embryos being destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death; citing its use ,even for research, as “,illegal, unethical, and unnecessary”. He sided with Conservative Christians urging research crossed “a moral boundary that our decent society needs to respect.”(Clemmitt, 1). A vote to overturn the veto ,due to public pressure from Conservatives, didn’t pass a 2/3rds majority vote. According to further investigation only “, 36 percent of Americans approved of Bush's veto of the ESC funding bill, 61 percent said that he only vetoed the legislation because of his personal moral beliefs, not politics.”(Clemmitt, 1). In aftereffect of this ruling, new strands of E.S.C. were no longer allowed to be produced, halting its use to research genetic diseases such as Parkinson's. Moreover, International research depleted. Varnee Murugan, an independent contributor for the Yale Biomedical Journal notes “,American researchers who previously spearheaded ES cell initiatives were no longer able to offer much of a contribution, stifling relationships with their international counterparts”.(Murugan, 1). Meaning American researchers collaborating with international scientists on projects could no longer take part in research initiatives sharing collaborative knowledge. In effect, with federal funding for E.S.C. research being cut, many biologists announced that promising studies they have been working on for years would be put on indefinite hold. Scientists in this field either choose to limit their research, give up all together and moved to a different field (putting away years of investigative journals, trials, and lab endeavor), or boldly uproot themselves to move to counties that allow for study. Years later, under Obama regulations were loosened, however the creation of new lines of DNA for research is still restricted, the only change now is that “,the final regulations only allow funding for research involving unused embryos from fertility clinics, excluding those embryos created specifically for research purposes or derived from other sources.”writes Murugan (Murugan, 1). A step small  (since only 2% of couples choose to donate unused embryos, while 86-98% sit in clinics frozen) but still a step in the right direction. This is where legislation has stayed for the past decade, with no further advancement.

This same mindset is not exclusive to the U.S. countries of the abroad have gone forward (not without backlash) to support, cultivate, and advance Embryonic Stem Cell research. “In July, the European Union voted to allow EU funds to be used for ESC research. Along with Japan, Israel, Australia, Canada and several European nations, the burgeoning high-tech economies of Singapore, Taiwan, China and South Korea are quickly jumping into the game as well.”(Clemmitt, 1) Asian countries ,that in the past dominated only technological fields, look to Biomedical research as their next conquerable area of prestige ,“Asia has never dominated [any field in] cutting-edge biology,” said Chunhua Zhao, director of Beijing's National Center for Stem Cell Research. “This could be our chance.”(Clemmitt, 1) And with America and many ethically bankrupt countries waving the white flag, it very well is. These countries, of course, are not allowing scientists to immorally kill embryos or paying women to. They have found ways to create federally run Committees and councils to handle the ethical use, testing, distribution, and collection of stem cells, notably the Council of Europe who held a Convention on Biomedicine and Human Rights. Catholic Countries that oppose stated ,“The protection of human dignity, and the right to life, needs to be properly entrenched,” said Germany's research minister, Annette Schavan.* While defenders attacked back ensuring “It is morally unacceptable to withhold these advances from patients, [when] it offers potentially tremendous advantages to [society],” noted British science minister David Sainsbury.* The U.S. could easily move past scrutiny of traditionalist to move towards a medically advanced society that ensures the health and dignified life of its citizens.

It’s easy to see the main vilification of E.S.C.s are that it will unjustly ending lives of embryos. But this couldn’t be further from the truth. Much like how the creation of organ donation didn’t lead to doctors willfully allowing for the death of humans ; creating a way for families to donate miscarriages to saving lives would not lead to unjust death of embryos. People, as a whole, Conservative Christians or not, must accept that just because someone dies doesn’t mean their legacy can’t live on to better the live of others. Just like people accept and support organ donation, the same claim can be made for Embryonic Stem Cells from miscarriages or left over from Invitro-Fertilization cycles. According to Arthur Caplan, a professor of medical ethics at the University of Pennsylvania, People must ,“acknowledge that embryos die all the time,” in the reproductive process, especially during Invitro and  by Christians staying silent about I.V.F. yet vocal about E.S.C.’s, they are being hypocritical (since either way the unused embryos are discarded). Not to mention other religions support the use of E.S.C.’s (Committee on Jewish Law and Standards of the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism in 2003 “overwhelmingly” approved “for research into creating cures for a number of human ailments,” and the synagogue should “publicly advocate” for use of the cells “in all appropriate ways,”). With all of this however there is a sort of silver lining in the future of Embryonic stem cell research. Christopher Reeve left behind with him a legacy to fight for medical advancement, the Christopher Reeve Foundation, which till this day advocates for analytical study into on spinal injury, diabetes and Parkinson's disease cures ; same with the Michael J. Fox foundation bringing awareness and support to the limelight of Hollywood. Stem cell research remains controversial in the US.

[http://library.cqpress.com.ez-srv.rcbc.edu:2048/cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqresrre2006090100&type=hitlist&num=0 Clemmitt, M. (2006, September 1). Stem cell research. CQ Researcher, 16, 697-720.]

[http://search.ebscohost.com.ez-srv.rcbc.edu:2048/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=124661955&site=ehost-live Marsa, L. (2017). What Once Was Lost. Discover, 38(8), 32–39.]

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2744932/ Murugan, V. (2009, September). Embryonic Stem Cell Research: A Decade of Debate from Bush to Obama.]

Ratajczak, M. Z., Zuba-Surma, E., Wojakowski, W., Suszynska, M., Mierzejewska, K., Liu, R., Kucia, M. (2014). Very small embryonic-like stem cells (VSELs) represent a real challenge in stem cell biology: recent pros and cons in the midst of a lively debate. Leukemia (08876924), 28(3), 473–484.