If you were a researcher in today’s scientific realm, would you engage in practice that could potentially find a cure for many conditions and illnesses, however; that very same practice is regarded by some people to be a form of murder. For scientists and researchers today engaging in embryonic stem cell research, this is the dilemma that these individuals face. Embryonic stem cell research has given scientists the ability to make many advances, for example, in patients with spinal cord issues, embryonic stem cell research has given these individuals a chance at making a full recovery and correcting bone growth issues. Embryonic stem cell research has also become a very realistic option to treat genetic conditions as well. Opponents believe that embryonic stem cell research is inherently the killing of an individual, since such research involves taking cells from an embryo when that particular embryo is in the “blastocyst” stage, which is a group of about 100 cells forming an individual. Critics of embryonic stem cell research argue that the human embryo is, at this stage, a living person – and therefore cannot be tampered with. This ongoing battle is echoed in two particular scientific articles presented, one in “Nature” and another in USA Today. These articles share perspective on the recent ban on stem cell research given through a federal judge, who halted US government funding of this researching practice. The "Nature" article, which possesses a more liberal viewpoint, argues for the continuation of embryonic stem cell research while the USA Today article holds a more conservative/pro-life viewpoint that we should completely stop the practice of embryonic stem cell research and instead use a less conflicting research method, adult stem cell research.
The particular "Nature" article (“A law in time?” 1) that I discussed deals with the idea that Congress should act quickly to stop the embryonic stem cell funding ban that was placed, in order to help save this particular research. With that being said, the author has now just entered into a realm of other issues and topics of debate by taking this stance – such as when should a living organism should be considered to be actual “life” or whether science has a place in changing what some people feel a divine influence has already created. The author obviously takes a more liberal stance in the issues mentioned of above, as shown in the thesis statement the article makes - embryonic stem cell research is an ethically sound practice in which the potential benefits exceed whatever costs (“A law in time?” 1).
The "Nature" article feels that instead of being a topic of great debate, embryonic stem cell research was, is, and will obviously play a huge role in scientific advances and milestones – and therefore needs to be protected. Scientists feel that the potential cures and research breakthroughs that can be made through embryonic stem cell research clearly outweigh whatever controversies that may lie in conducting this practice. The evidence from this article mainly deals with the many professionals whose hard-work and timeless efforts in the scientific field would go for a waste, and also the potential benefits being left at the table without further pursuing embryonic stem cell research (“A law in time?” 1). This type of evidence, I feel, is presented in such a way as to give the reader sympathy towards the opinion of the scientists – making us feel that getting rid of stem cell research would not only hinder science’s ability to come up with a cure to a particular disease, but also wipe out the work done by hundreds and hundreds of scientists all over the world. The idea that various scientific experiments will be left at a standstill with no embryonic stem cell research funding is definitely presented through the "Nature" article. With that being said, the essential argument being made through the Nature article is that embryonic stem cell research, which has real no definite negative impacts, could very well help to cure various conditions and that leaving such research alone would be forfeiting such a huge opportunity would not only be at the cost of scientists and researchers, but humanity in general as well (“A law in time?” 1).
As with all great advances in whatever fields of research, there is bound to be a level of opposition to such progress.
After doing some research, I was able to find an article that holds a contrary opinion compared to the "Nature" article discussed above. The article comes from USA Today and is written by Matt Bowman, a legal counsel with the Allied Defense Fund, an organization that led the lawsuit against the Obama’s embryonic stem cell research guidelines. This particular article deals with how the government should react in response to the recent ban on embryonic stem cell research. Bowman states, quote, “Hopefully, the administration will not appeal but will instead spend federal dollars where they are really helping people. Our government should not funnel millions of dollars to pointless research in which the only result is dead human embryos” (“Opposing view on medical research: 'Pointless research'” 1).
The article’s evidence supports the author’s thesis statement in the form of actual examples of past successes in the usage of adult stem cell research, and pointing out the failed efforts of embryonic stem cell research. Some of these examples include spinal cord patients whose mobility improved after loss usage of their legs and a group of German scientists helping heart-failure patients with improved pumping performance (“Opposing view on medical research: 'Pointless research'” 1). These examples, compared to the "Nature" article, seem to be more concrete pieces of evidence, giving this particular article a strong degree of credible evidence to back up the thesis statement being made. In addition to giving particular examples of adult stem research, the USA Today article points out the shortcomings on the part of embryonic stem cell research, and that how such a research technique has not really produced results, considering the amount of energy and time that was, and is, put into such an effort. Moreover, the author uses terms such as ‘destroying’ and ‘dead’ to describe embryonic stem cell research – all done in effort to create a negative association with the term (“Opposing view on medical research: ‘Pointless research’” 1).
These various forms of evidence used in the USA Today article led to the overall argument being presented – that embryonic stem cell research is wrong, and that adult stem cell research instead is the much more sensible scientific practice that should be taken up (“Opposing view on medical research: Pointless research’” 1).
With that being said, the person reading this posting has now been presented with two opposing opinions regarding the usage of embryonic stem cell research, opinions that likely cause for uneasiness and uncertainty for the reader as well. Looking at the overall comparison of the Nature and USA today articles, the evidence that each provides gives not only me, but I am also sure you as the reader, a sense as to which article seems to be stronger and have a more definite support structure. The "Nature" article plays to the reader’s emotional interests and feelings, trying to bring about a sense of support towards the efforts of allowing embryonic stem cell research, whereas the USA Today article uses more concrete pieces of evidence, such as real life examples, to support its particular thesis statement presented. That said I feel, in my opinion, that the USA Today article does in fact do a better job at conveying the thesis statement presented. On a personal note though, while I may feel that the article presenting the flaws of embryonic stem cell research is stronger, I am in favor of continuing embryonic stem cell research as a whole.
Works Cited
- “A law in time?” Nature (467). 02 September 2010 – Published Online: 01 September 2010. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7311/full/467007a.html
- “Opposing view on medical research: 'Pointless research'.” USA Today. 24 August 2010. http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2010-08-25-editorial25_ST1_N.htm
- Image source: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2010/08/judge-blocks-federal-funding-for-stem-cell-research-/1
- Image source:
No comments:
Post a Comment