Links to think

The following are some links to other sites that I think would really aid in people's understanding of the issue at hand as well as looking at opinion and morals versus research.

Basic information to understand the science behind the issue:

National Institutes of Health (NIH) Stem Cell Information

Time Magazine

Religious Tolerance

Opinions on the ongoing debate:

The White House

Why not adult stem cells?

The President

The Worlds View

Information on Research being done:

University of Wisconsin-Madison

The Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics

Small success

Other embyronic stem cells

Recent research has shown that there are four other potential ways of obtaining embryonic stem cells without destroying a human embryo, making these options hopefully less controversial.
The first is called the Parthenote Proposal. This is the idea of creating a parthenote which is an egg, triggered by chemicals to think it has been fertilized and begin dividing and organizing, that develops into an embryo producing embryonic stem cells. Eggs that have not been fertilized can be used. These eggs can easily be found due to the fact that reproductive clinics throw away thousands of them which have failed to fertilize through IVF attempts. The ethical issue is minimized because human parthenotes cannot develop far in a natural state because of the lack of paternal DNA, many researchers consider them embryo-like entities but not embryos.
A second option is the Morula Proposal. This would involved scientists using an embryo that has developed to the 8-cell stage, called a morula, and remove a solo cell which could be coaxed to replicate into an embryonic stem cell line. The now 7-cell embryo can then be implanted into a womb and grow normally.
Next, a third option is an organ transplant proposal. Some scientists believe that just as there are people who are brain dead but have functioning organs, there are embryos that exist that are in essence dead in a similar way. When an embryo is believed to not be able to develop an farther the term "arrested development" is used.
Lastly, is the alternate nuclear transfer (ANT) proposal. ANT has similarities to cloning. Scientists would create an "embryo-like entity" which would not have the developmental gene making it similar to those that would develop into a cancerous tumor. Basically, a developmental gene is turned off in the nucleus being transferred. Then using the cloning process, the altered nucleus is then inserted into an enucleated egg, stimulated to divide, and stem cells can then be harvested.
However, just like traditional embryonic stem cell research, each of these methods have their own technical and ethical problems as well which can be seen at this site.

Life is life....right?

I would really like to take this "human rights" idea one step farther. One commenter, healthy lungs, brought up a great point. What does "human rights" mean? In this context, I am referring to not only the basic human right to live but also the right to choose life or death and the right to speak up. An embryo or a fetus still has the basic human rights, according to Bush, and so it is wrong to abort or destroy and embryo without consent from the "person" with the rights which of course is impossible to get.
However, there is a hole in this idea since there are laws against suicide. If Bush wants to argue that everyone including and embryo has the basic human right to choose life or death then why could an embryo choose but not a living person? Why are there laws against suicide and assisted suicide if a person has basic human rights to a choice? I realize that it is a stretch relating embryonic stem cell research to suicide, but if a human life is a human life that why is it different whether the life is born or unborn when they make the decision to live or die? What do you think? Do the morals stay the say?

When am I old enough?

It is part of the parent/child relationship that the parent must know when it is okay for the child to start eating certain foods or watching certain shows on TV. The infamous line "But when will I be old enough?" is asked everyday by some child around the world when seeking to buy candy at the grocery store or who wants to watch MTV on the new big screen. But the first question a person must answer is when is a baby old enough to gain their basic human rights, the right to live instead of being killed/aborted? Most people today believe the point of no return is somewhere between conception and when the fetus begins to think and feel.
The same issue is also brought up in abortion and even to an extent a parallel lies in homeland security. The subject of abortion is constantly raising the ethical issue of aborting a growing life and compromises have been made as to what point in a pregnancy it is still okay to get an abortion. Homeland security also questions a persons basic human rights and rights innately given to you by the government. For some people these rights are simply taken away if the government has any suspicion without being given a reason, just as an embryo is never given a choice to have its rights taken.
Through all of the events that contributed to the development of stem cells and its controversy, some issues have gone on for years and I have a feeling the question of when life truly starts is going to be one of them.

Help me!

So I need some help from everyone. I have attempted to remain unbiased in my posts, at least presenting the opposite view point to some degree. However, I just do not understand how our president and thousands of Americans can equate the life of a blastocyst to that of a living human being. This is just mind bottling to me, I mean a blastocyst is only a few cells, it does not feel, think, it has not even begun to take the shape of a human. How can this ball of cells have the same basic human rights as a living breathing human with feelings, emotion, love, and pain. How can these cells come before millions of people suffering worldwide from countless diseases. To me the choice would be obvious but I would really like to understand the other point of view better in order to argue my opinions more effectively, or this information may even change my opinions all together.

Embryonic Stem Cell Analysis

Embryonic Stem Cell Research, where to begin? These words encompass so much to so many people; hopes of living, the thought of murder, and the morals and values parents grew up with and now pass on to future generations.

Embryonic Stem Cells is defined by the medical dictionary as: “Human embryonic: Also known as a human pluripotent stem cell, one of the "cells that are self-replicating, are derived from human embryos or human fetal tissue, and are known to develop into cells and tissues of the three primary germ layers. Although human pluripotent stem cells may be derived from embryos or fetal tissue, such stem cells are not themselves embryos". Basically, this long and semi-complicated definition boils down to the fact that stem cells are a group of cells (approximately 50-150 cells big) called a blastocyst that can divide to form new cells by itself. The blastocyst comes from human embryos and fetal tissue but can be derived in other ways. The way that stem cell lines are derived is simply shown on this site under the interactive headline, beneath basics, titled "How it works".

The key phrase in the given definition by the medical dictionary is “such stem cells are not themselves embryos.” This means that this group of cells has not even become an embryo yet, it only has the potential to form and embryo to become life. That potential is the most important nine letter word in the whole debate.

Why do we even concern ourselves with these cells you may ask? What makes them such a hot button issue for millions across the globe? Stem cells are unprogrammed cells in the human body that can be described as "shape shifters." The cells have the ability to change into any type of cell that you would find the body. Stem cells are at the center of a new field of science called regenerative medicine. Because stem cells can become bone, muscle, cartilage and other specialized types of cells, they have the potential to treat many diseases, including Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, diabetes and cancer, anything that has to do with the regeneration or replacing of cells. Eventually, they may also be used to regenerate organs, reducing the need for organ transplants and related surgeries. One revolutionary study made history by being the first human stem cells to be used to repair heart muscle cells in a rat. It is very interesting to look at the statistics. In a survey, 54% of Americans support embryonic stem cell research which is down from the 2005 survey, but when asked if they support the use of embryonic stem cells in order to pursue treatment for themselves or family members afflicted with a condition such as Parkinson's Disease or spinal cord injury, 70% said yes. Many people only look embryonic stem cell research as a moral or ethical issue, not even considering the effects of the research that will undoubtedly one day affect their lives or the lives of someone they love.

Now I do have to add that there is a difference between adult human stem cells and embryonic stem cells. Adult stem cells can be found naturally in the body. It is the body’s way of attempting to repair itself as a defense; however the origin of these cells is unknown. The problem with adult stem cells is that they are very limited as far as what type of cell they can become. Adult stem cells can only differentiate into various types of cells from the original tissue it came from. On the other hand, embryonic stem cells come from left over invetro fertilization or aborted fetuses, and now a new way has been found to extract some from umbilical cords. Also, the latest update comes from two teams of scientists who have found a way to create embryonic stem cells without destroying an embryo, but this technology is still farther in the future than some would like to look. Embryonic cells can become anything, anyone of the different cells in your body from skin to the lung can be formedu through the development of these cells.

One hurtle lies in people’s perspective, the ethical issue at hand. Is it okay to destroy a blastocyst in the name of science? Is it okay to kill the potential that the cells hold? Many people would argue no because that potential in question is possible human life and even this small group of cells has the basic human right to live. A similar concept is used in the death penalty argument. Is it okay for the other people or even the government to step in and restrict the collection of embryonic stem cells or to condemn a potential life to be destroyed. Apparently President Bush believes just this . The President passed a bill stopping the federal funding of further collection of embryonic stem cells, only funding research on lines already derived, where the “life or death” choice has already been made. However, the possibility of privately funded research on new lines is possible. The problem is finding the funds. The NIH or National Institute of Health is only one of a few revolutionary locations in the United States (even though many other places around the world conduct and support research) that is able to continue studies on the existing stem cell lines. This debate is not even including the possibility of fertilizing an egg for the purpose of research. A whole other debate revolves around the idea of created a fertilized egg for the sole reason of destroying it in research.

On the other hand many would argue yes because by destroying a ball of cells with no thoughts, no future, no feeling, you are using it to create hope and possibly cures for thousands of suffering people living today. The irony is, what if one of the blastocysts saved by this new bill becomes one of the thousands in need of its research due to lung cancer, heart disease, kidney failure, or any one of the other countless medical conditions?

Snowflake Babies vs. Adoption

First off I would like to thank everyone because I have received such great feedback about Snowflake babies!

Now, I want to raise a question which I realize may be a bit prickly for some but I guess that is what I am here for anyway. Is giving birth to a snowflake baby the same as adopting a child already born into the world? President Bush uses the term snowflake babies to refer to a fertilized egg that is "adopted" and implanted into the women to continue to grow into a baby . Now, I can understand both sides of the argument to some extent, this group of cells has the potential to be a human being (and also to save thousands of life by being used in research) but by adopting a child already born and unwanted, you are saving the life of a feeling human, one the feels its stomach hurt when hungry and fingers numb when cold. How can saving a couple of blank cells, that do not even know it is human compare to the life of a child that may realize he/she will die by the end of the week due to lack of nutrition and shelter (reference Sudan if you will).

Our lovely President Bush invited 21 Snowflake babies and their families to the White House to praise their good deed and promote the birth of every embryo in reserve. Do you realize that would be approximately 330,000+ women walking around now pregnant responsible for feeding, clothing, caring for and dealing with medical issues for all of these kids. You can read our President's public address at the following site to form your own ideas.

Snowflake Babies

It seems to me that one issue concerning individual's opinions about embryonic stem cell research is where the embryos come from.

I believe that it is more socially acceptable to use embryos that where created for in-vitro fertilization and left over rather than an aborted embryo. Many fertilized eggs are discarded, unwanted, after a few years after being created for in-vitro. However, when discussing this with a good friend of mine, lets call her Amy, she believed that it mattered most if the egg was fertilized outside or inside the body. She thought that if the egg is fertilized outside the body it will not naturally develop any further, but if fertilized inside the body then you are stopping a natural process if the fertilized egg(s) are removed. However, too me an embryo is a group of cells with in the potential to develop into a human whether developed in the body or not. There is such a thing as the adoption of the unborn. Women can "adopt" a fertilized egg that has been left over from other in vitro fertilization cases and carry the embryo to term. The name given to children born through this process is "Snowflake Babies". Even with this option, there are still countless fertilized eggs that are not adopted and simply discarded. Why cant these go towards productive research instead?

In my opinion, I am more concerned with the hundreds of thousands of people dying each year from diseases. People who have any kind of condition which involves the generation of cells have hope of being cured with the further research of embryonic stem cells.

I would also like to note that a professor at our very own UNC Chapel Hill has been awarded as a co-recipient of the Nobel Prize for embryonic stem cell research. Dr. Oliver Smithies, Excellence professor of pathology and laboratory medicine at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine, is a co-recipient of this year’s Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine.

The Nobel Foundation today announced that Smithies, along with Mario R. Capecchi of the University of Utah’s Howard Hughes Medical Institute and Sir Martin J. Evans of the United Kingdom, will share this year’s Nobel Prize “for their discoveries of principles for introducing specific gene modifications in mice by the use of embryonic stem cells."

Hello

First of all, welcome to my new blog! This site is dedicated to the discussion of the current public issue: Embryonic Stem Cell Research. Now lets get started.

Over the past few years, stem cell research has received star power from famous celebrities such as actor Michael J. Fox and the infamous boxer Muhammad Ali. Both men suffer from Parkinson's disease which is on the long list of medical conditions which could possibly be cured with further research of embryonic stem cells. Michael J. Fox did an interview with George Stephanopoulos . The dialogue helps to explain the point-of-view of someone with hope, someone who has something to gain from the testing being done with these cells. Mr. Fox explains the trade-offs he makes in his daily life and some of the criticism he must endure because of his strong stance. For me it is really important that as this blog develops, the focus is not just on the research being done and the science but also how the research and restrictions around it affect people, how all of this will or will not be applied to daily life. Anyone, from individuals like Mr. Fox and Mr. Ali who have everything to gain, to someone who believes that by conducting this research you are performing murder, every person’s voice matters. In the end it is not what actually happens that will make the last impact decades from now, but how people perceive what happened that will make the difference. For example if the masses were to view research that breaks the embryonic stem cell, not as murder but as being one step closer to saving hundreds of thousands of other lives, the outlook becomes positive versus someone viewing the same situation as committing murder for the possible off chance that maybe that small minute group of cells may be a step in finding a cure for some medical condition depending on what is stumbled upon. I look forward to people reading and writing back to me so we can discuss the personal impact of this issue along with morals and science for the latter two can be discussed until the text turns blue!