Stemming of the Stem Cell

For the first time in his presidency, President George W Bush made a historic veto last July 19th murdering the hopes of additional development from the stem cell technology. The terminated bill has been aimed at lifting the ban on federal financing of embryonic stem cell research that President Bush himself imposed 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 two thirds vote which could have overturned Bush's veto power. With an argument on grounds of social morals, the veto from the president was already been anticipated. Bush has always been vocal in his stand against embryonic stem cell research and the technologies which uses human embryos in trying to develop miracle cures for terminal diseases.

With the veto, President Bush gained a broader 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 problem has been residing in the greatest offices of this nation but many common Americans are still unaware on what's the real deal about stem cell. The only message that the authorities and other concerned parties are sending into the social foundation is the possibility of stem cell to cure terminal diseases. Insufficient understanding on how stem cell can achieve this potential and its political, social, and spiritual underpinnings has been made available to the huge public which at the end of the day is at the receiving end of any legislation.

At a really lengthy conversation I had with a cousin who teaches Biology, I came to understand stem cells are cells of the human body that are in their very early stage of development and are not yet supposed to perform very specific roles. Unlike brain tissues that maynot replace the functions of the heart cells, stem cells can be manufactured and assigned to do anything purpose. This characteristic is apparently what's seen by specialists to be million-years missing link to solving acute body and organ malfunctions.

Researchers and scientists say that by focusing on the yet unspecialized nature of stem cells, specifying mechanisms can be done to transform these stem cells into a certain type 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 resolve like heart diseases, diabetes, spinal column damages, Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease. On a scholastic note, stem cell technology advocates assert that by exploring the numerous possibilities of stem cells, humanity will achieve a greater understanding on how diseases develop from the cell and tissue level.

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

And when ethics and morals are in the film, politics cannot be missing. Given the numerous analyses, view points, and resistance coming from organized religions and groups, governments of countries where stem cell research exist are placed in an extremely stressful tipping point. With pragmatic, radical promises colliding with instituted social beliefs and moral convictions, authorities are at the mercy of exclusive polars. A solid support base is what keeps a government alive (along with a president popular). If majority of the folks are secular, hurting their beliefs will not do a government any good. But what about the federal interest in progress and advancement? And thus the debate ensues.

Much more issues arise from stem cell. Should further studies be chased and developed into technologies? Should currently approved stem cell processes be widened? If we be contented with adult stem cells liver more about embryos? Should stem cell research and technology be funded by the state? Where can we draw the line between morals and practicality?

To constructively participate in the matter, I argue in favor of the stem cell assistants. The religious opposition some businesses have is not something new to be so upset about. They had the same stance regarding divorce, about euthanasia, and even about warfare. Yes, their opposition is a essential component given that we are (ideally) in democratic society where multi perspective political stands are celebrated. However, their resistance should not in any manner be the turning point of the destiny of any attempt to advance human knowledge, especially if they (the anti-stem cell groups) or their nearest and dearest can benefit from it. Issues such as the fraud and embezzlement of South Korea's Hwang Woo-suk are valid and worth the scrutiny it deserves. But basically, the incident is not in any manner reminiscent of the follies of stem cell technology.


Read More Information Here Stem cell research tips