Stemming of the Stem Cell

For the first time in his presidency, President George W Bush made a historical veto last July 19th killing the hopes of additional development in the stem cell technology. The terminated bill has been aimed at lifting the ban on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research which 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 needed two thirds vote which could have overturned Bush's veto power. Having an argument on grounds of societal morals, the veto in the president was somehow already been anticipated. 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.

With the veto, President Bush gained a wider service ground one of the conservative Republicans and the numerous progressive religious and conservative advocacy groups. Disappointment and frustrations, on the other hand, escalated among the seculars and liberals.

The issue has been residing in the highest offices of this country but most common Americans remain unaware on what's the real deal about stem cell. The only thing the government and other concerned parties are sending to this social foundation is the potential of stem cell to cure terminal diseases. Insufficient understanding how stem cell might attain this potential and its political, social, and religious underpinnings has been made accessible to the large public which in the close of the day is at the end of any legislation.

At a very lengthy conversation I had with a cousin that teaches Biology, I came to realize stem cells are cells of the body which are at their very early stage of development and aren't yet supposed to perform very specific roles. Unlike brain cells that maynot replace the functions of the cells, stem cells could be manufactured and assigned to do anything purpose. This attribute is apparently what is seen by specialists to be million-years missing link to solving serious body and organ malfunctions.

Scientists and researchers say that by focusing on the unspecialized nature of stem cells, demonstrating mechanics could be done to turn these stem cells into a certain kind of cell to be used to replace damaged tissues of an organ. This assumption claims stem cells to function as fix kits especially to diseases which are presently hard to solve like heart diseases, diabetes, spinal column harms, Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease. On a scholastic note, stem cell technologies advocates argue that by exploring the numerous possibilities of stem cells, humanity will achieve a greater understanding on how diseases develop in the cell and tissue level.

It seems perfectly fine and enormously valuable, so what is the fuss all about? As I had been (objectively I hope) told, the controversy is rooted from the simple fact that the most viable stem cells are from the tissues of an embryo. Applied in human context, it is the human embryo-- that the outset of life, something we humans can't change or infringe on (as societal and moral constructs taught us).

And when ethics and morals are at the film, politics cannot be missing. Given the several analyses, see points, and resistance coming from organized religions and classes, governments of countries where stem cell research exist are put in a very stressful tipping point. With pragmatic, revolutionary promises colliding with instituted social beliefs and ethical convictions, governments are at the mercy of mutually exclusive polars. A solid support base is what keeps a government alive (and a president popular). If majority of the people are secular, damaging their beliefs will not do a government any good. However, what about the national interest in progress and advancement? And so the debate ensues.

Far more issues arise in stem cell. Should further researches be pursued and developed into technology? Should currently accepted stem cell procedures be widened? Should we be filled with adult stem cells bank more about embryos? Should stem cell research and technologies be financed by the state? Where do we draw the line between morals and restraint?

To constructively engage in the matter, I argue in favor of the stem cell advocates. The religious opposition some sectors have is not something new to be so upset about. They had the exact same stance regarding divorce, about euthanasia, as well as about warfare. Yes, their resistance is a necessary component given that we are (ideally) in democratic society in which multi perspective political stands are celebrated. However, their opposition must not in any manner be the turning point of the fate of any endeavor to advance human understanding, particularly if they (the anti-stem mobile bands) or their nearest and dearest may benefit out of it. Issues such as the fraud and embezzlement of South Korea's Hwang Woo-suk are valid and worth the scrutiny it deserves. But essentially, the episode is not in any way indicative of the follies of stem cell technology.

Get to know more about Stem cell research tips