The Conflict of Stem Cell Research
Talk
about stem cell research in the social or scientific world you will
have created a deep division between any groups you may be talking to.
Just like abortion, homosexuality, and affirmative action this country
is constantly debating whether stem cell research should be allowed as
lawful in today’s society. Stem cell research, known in the scientific
community as therapeutic cloning, is a great medical discovery.
However, it is unethical, and until there is a change in the process it
should never be performed, or even considered as an option for human
health.
Therapeutic cloning is the process in which a five day old embryo
(called a blastocyst) is stripped of its stem cells. The embryo is
destroyed in the process, and the stem cells will be stored for later
use. The importance of therapeutic cloning is to obtain the stem cells
that will be used to make diverse body organs. This is possible only
because of the stem cells unique ability to divide and become any
specialized cell of the body. Then these cells will divide go from
cells to tissues to organs. This creates the possibility of growing
organs. This would save many people who die form waiting on a medical
list for a heart, kidney, pancreas, or liver transplant. This would
also provide a possible cure for all cancers, heart disease, and
Alzheimer’s disease.
The only problem is that it kills a possible living being. The embryo
that is destroyed in this process; is the same embryo in fertilization
that becomes a baby. This is where the conflict arises. The church has
been the greatest group against therapeutic cloning, especially the
Roman Catholic Church, believing cloning violates God’s will or the
natural order of life. I agree with this because the embryo dies.
However, I think that it isn’t wrong if there is a way to remove the
stem cells and yet keep the embryo alive so it grows into a healthy
baby. (2.Biblography)“Dr. Richard Doerflinger, a frequent spokesman for
the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, said his church favored
equal protection for all embryos, damaged as well as healthy.”
Through frequent research I have found a few claims which state that
they can perform this therapeutic cloning without killing the embryo.
One turned out to be false, which (sadly) was forged by a formerly
recognized stem cells research scientist named Woo Suk Hwang. However,
a process called parthenogenesis. Parthenogenesis is the process where
an unfertilized egg (oocyte) is tricked to divide (as if it were hit by
a sperm) by being introduced to a chemical called ionomycin. This
causes the oocyte to eventually become a zygote, and allow a biologist
to pull stem cells from the embryo while preserving future life. The
problem to this is that oocyte ends up with 2 sets of female
chromosomes like a somatic cell, not allowing fertilization to take
place. This prevents a baby from being born.
I have a solution to this issue. I have an idea that I believe will end
all debate to the conflict between the ethics of therapeutic cloning. I
propose that instead of using the egg for cloning use polar bodies.
Polar bodies are created when the egg first begins to divide. The
purpose of polar bodies is just to take away the extra chromosomes from
the egg and die. So what I propose is that instead of letting the polar
body die introduce ionomycin to it causing it to divide like an oocyte
would in parthenogenesis. Then stop the introducing the chemical after
all the daughter cells become haploids. Then separate the haploids and
introduce ionomycin to them again. This will cause them to divide and
eventually become zygotes. Then once they are blastocysts remove the
stem cells. Then the process if parthenogenesis will begin again and
you have just begun a stem cell production cycle.
Now my idea may not work, but that is ok. The main thing that needs to
be known is if there is no ethical and right way this found to do
therapeutic cloning it should not be done, nor ever considered again.
Right now biologist and doctors need to try to find other alternatives
to cure our major diseases. Medication and vaccines are still options
that are mostly ethical and do save lives. So for now let’s try to do
something we known are right and saves lives.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/cloning.shtml
2.http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C00E2D8163DF932A35751C0A96493.C8B63&sec=health&pagewanted=1
4.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloning
5.www.newscientist.com/channel/sex/stem-cells/dn8557-hwang-faked-all-research-on-human- stem-cells.html
6.http://home.comcast.net/~john.kimball1/BiologyPages/S/Sexual_Reproduction.html
7.http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/
6 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a
href="" title="" rel=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym
title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code>
<em> <i> <strike> <strong>
This was written by Anthony W. 2nd period
Comment by Anthony W. — 11/2/2006 @ 5:27 pm | Edit This
Anthony, I agree with you 100%. Parthenogenesis is an exelent way for stem cell research to be peformed. My question is why were the scientist not using polar bodies in the first place? If they thought the polar bodies did not contain the necessary materials then they should have researched it for themselves. You have people who complain about funding for this issue. Well technically we are trillions of dollars in debt, we are supporting an unnecessary war and trying to get the UN to find countries that pose a threat like Iraq and N. Korea(when, intern we are the terrorist). Overall, I think that your idea should be published. When you get famous, remember me and tell people who encouraged you to publish your, soon to be theory.
Comment by Darryl J — 11/4/2006 @ 4:39 pm | Edit This
Great Job Anthony. You really went in depth about the topic and I completely agree with you. I could tell that you really understood the subject. Keep up the excellent work.
Comment by Jayln F. — 11/5/2006 @ 5:19 pm | Edit This
I appreicate your comment, but I might not remember you (sorry) when I become famous ( I’ll try though). Could anyone offer some critasim instead of giving me praise. I need to find out any flaws in my hypothesis.
Comment by Anthony W. — 11/6/2006 @ 9:01 am | Edit This
Thanks Jayln. I appreciate you reading and responding to my post, but I need constructive critasim in order to change possible flaws in my hypothesis.
Comment by Anthony W. — 11/6/2006 @ 9:03 am | Edit This
Don’t contradict yourselves. You both put effort into your essays(I hope). This is what Mr. Martin wanted us to do. Communicate on the blog and have classmates blog each other.
Comment by Darryl J — 11/9/2006 @ 4:51 pm | Edit This