I wrote a paper on adult stem cell research vs. embryonic stem cell research.  My view is clearly displayed as pro adult stem cell research, anti embryonic stem cell research.  My belief being mainly based around the ethical issues surrounding embryonic stem cells.  In my paper, I didn’t touch too much on ethos because it is such a factual paper.  My paper was extremely factually and I felt the papers audience might have been rather limited.  However, I want to broaden my audience and reach a more general intellectual crowd.  By this, I mean I want my ad to be placed in Time Magazine or something of that same nature.  I have decided to create an ad for this magazine.  I think I really need to highlight the ethos because my paper lacked a lot of this.  By this, I want to dramatically emphasize how embryonic stem cell research can be considered killing a human life.  Therefore, I want to have a picture of a laughing baby, who looks really happy as the backdrop.  Then I would have in white bold writing “How many lives do we have to kill to save another?”  This was actually the title of my paper and this is why I chose it.  I want the font to be precise and white to pop out of the page to grab the onlooker’s attention. I also chose it because I want people to look at it and wonder about stem cell research and have it advocate how more federal funding is necessary for adult stem cell research opposed to embryonic stem cell research and prove the “why don’t you support adult stem cell research” factor, simply by the image.  The image, which displays the unethical issues and the slogan, touches on an emotional key for most people.  The reason it is going to just contain those two things, is so it appears dramatic, that’s all you see. I want people to look at it and think what is this baby about?  The only factor I am worried about is people may not know it’s about stem cell research.  However, I know my classmates will simply because we have been studying each other’s papers and I will describe my ad to the class.  I am glad to include more ethos because it is difficult to include this in an academic paper that requires so much factual information.  In order for this to be in our culture today, it needs to appeal to people, and this is why I chose an ad in Times Magazine.  Factors such as font, picture, and what type of magazine are important to my topic because I my ad needs to reach a general crowd, and this is why I chose each of those measures in my project. 

In Susan Bordo’s “Never Just Pictures,” she highlights immensely her thoughts regarding eating disorders.  Bordo elaborates by even using children in this culture as an example by use of a study.  Where the children even pointed out images of overweight people, which gave the children disapproval and discomfort. She also thinks that magazines teach us “to love a woman’s pelvis, her hipbones jutting out through a bias-cut gown…” further highlighting her negative belief of skinny women in today’s day in age.  Furthermore, she claims that, “the spread of eating disorders, of course, is not just about images.  The emergence of eating disorders is a complex, multilayered cultural “symptom”, reflecting problems that are historical as well as contemporary, arising in our time because of the confluence of a number of factors.”  She supports her claim with a picture of an ex-anorexic Stephanie Grant who is her novel The Passion of Alice, states, “If I had to say anorexia was about any single thing, I would have said it was about living without desire.  Without longing of any kind.” 

            This last quote written by an anorexic girl was absolutely “eye-opening” to me. I always thought that eating disorders had a deeper meaning, but it has never been put in perspective like that before.  But it is true, the disease is living without desire.  Which helps Bordo prove her next point how women look like “heroin-chic’s.”  Women who have no desire to upkeep their looks is how I interpreted it.  “They wanted models that looked like junkies.  The more skinny and fucked-up you look, the more everybody thinks you’re fabulous.”  I have seen this in many magazines, and this is true it is what the magazines are portraying to children.  I was shocked at reading this and completely gave me realization.  Finally, her last point I initially disagreed with, but the more I thought about it the more I realized how right Bordo was yet again.  She talks about the Calvin Klein models and how their faces are nothing but ordinary and had no makeup in their faces.  She then realized, all this ad emphasizes is how important the body is over the face.  I found that very true to the advertising world and very tricky how they portray that to society.

            For my final project, I would like to do an ad in a magazine.  I think since my topic is a rather scientific topic, it would be appropriate to put in Times magazine.  I say this because it’s a more relaxed informative magazine.  I want my article to be able to reach a general audience with a captivating image and title.  I was thinking I could have a picture of Christopher Reeve on it because he had Parkinson’s disease and someone included how adult –stem cell research gave him hope.  Or maybe have him with a smiling face and looking healthy and having a picture of him like that and have 2030 at the top, showing how long it will take to have had him be cured if we are going at this pace for federal funding for stem cell research.  I want to go with a more ethos than I touched on in my paper.  I want it to hit home for people who see the image and it could go back to a loved one who could use adult stem cell research to help someone in their family get over a disease.  These are just some rough ideas, I am still thinking because I might do a pamphlet, but ad is more what I am leaning towards. 

Stem cell research is a major issue in our day in age, which is why it is such a controversial issue.  The ability for scientists to use stem cells in their research, leads to advancements in curing diseases.  These cells differ immensely from other cells.  In fact, there is a large ethical debate centered on research involving creation, usage, and destruction of human embryonic stem cells.  However, not all stem cell research involves these ethical debates including adult stem cell research.  In fact, “much success and potential has been demonstrated from research using adult stem cells.” (Avasthi).  In addition, if research is not pursued then a possible “brain drain” will occur causing people of high technical knowledge to move out of their country normally due to conflict, or lack of opportunity. This is why I believe adult stem cells research should be pursued because they lack ethical issues and therefore there should be more federal funding in order to prevent a “brain drain.”

             In order to understand stem cells you must understand that all stem cells have the ability to differentiate into any type of cell.  “Most tissues of our bodies possess stem cells that can reproduce the different cells required in tissue.  Bone marrow stem cells can produce the many different cells of the blood.  These were given the name stem cells, since they are seen as the stem of a plant that produces all the “branches and leaves” of that tissue.” (Bohlin).  First and foremost, stem cells are able to divide throughout life and give rise to cells that can become highly specialized and take the place of cells that die or are lost. (Avasthi).  Secondly, they can be used under certain physiologic or experimental conditions.  And Lastly, Grayling states, “they have the ability to develop into any tissue in the body.  For example, these cells are able to develop into cells that will help with many diseases, including, Parkinson’s disease, spinal cord injury, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, hearing and vision loss, and muscular dystrophy.”  

            Scientists are mainly researching with two main types of stem cells, embryonic and adult stem cells.  Embryonic stem cell research is the more controversial one of the two.  This may be because embryonic stem cells are derived from embryos at a developmental stage before the time of implantation would normally occur in the uterus. (Avasthi).  Some argue that because the embryo has the potential to be a person, its moral worth is the same as a human being. (McCormick, and Scott).  This, for some, means that stem cell research is research of an existing human being, thus making this research unethical.  Some favor embryonic stem cell research because they are capable of forming all the tissues of the body.  Therefore, some scientists find it the most promising for treatment of degenerative diseases. 

However, many scientists disagree.  They believe in adult stem cell research because of its moral content and its endless possibilities.  Because adult stem cell research can actually be retrieved from the individual requiring the therapy and treatment, there is nothing ethically incorrect about this research.  In fact, it has recently been shown that certain types of stem cells are not limited to producing cells for the tissue in which they reside.  For instance, bone marrow stem cells can produce skeletal muscle, neural, cardiac muscle, and liver cells.  Bone marrow stem cells can even migrate to these tissues via the circulatory system. (Bohlin).  

            Embryonic research is a process that requires killing an embryo.  This brings about a serious question, is this ethical?  And to what extent may we consider embryonic stem cell research ethical?  What beings should we be able to classify as “persons?” Grayling likes to use the metaphor of humans to a fish.  He claims that of the billions of eggs laid by fish, only about 0.5 percent hatch.  Humans are not much less lavish.  Every year hundreds of billions of spermatozoa die before reaching an ovum, and billions of ova are expelled unfertilized in menstrual cycles.  An estimated quarter of all pregnancies spontaneously terminate before the sixth week; and overall, about one in five pregnancies spontaneously terminate before 20 weeks.  We can obviously see his opinion on embryonic stem cell research; it’s not unethical.  But just because some pregnancies “don’t work out,” doesn’t mean we have the right to say embryonic research is ethical and in moral standing.  In fact, I believe it’s even more dishonorable.  If pregnancies are so rare, then why is it okay to use the “left over” stem cells for research that was used in in-vitro fertilization for a couple?  What if the woman needs her eggs later on when her pregnancy doesn’t work out?  On the contrary, if the woman consents to the usage of her spare embryos, can research simply rely on these few eggs to do their research? This could start the pattern of a rather “slippery slope.”  If we rely on the spare embryos and use federal funding on this, ultimately, women could be more likely to use in-vitro.  For those who are pro-embryonic research, this could be great news.  However, this could even lead to fewer children being adopted.  This slope could ultimately lead to disaster.  Moreover, many people are firm believers that human personhood starts shortly after conception.  For many, human life is considered sacred and life, they believe, it truly begins when a sperm cell fertilizes an egg cell.

There is ultimately no controversy over adult stem cell research.  This is because the stem cells can be retrieved from the individual who is actually receiving the therapy and also because it is not destroying an embryo.  While embryonic stem cells might be rejected by the immune system, adult stem cells carry an increased potential of not causing any immune complications. (Bohlin).  This highlights the advantages of previously unknown adult stem cells and their unexpected ability to produce numerous types of cells.  Furthermore, because adult stem cells could be harvested from the individual needing the therapy and reinserted back into that very same individual, all rejection problems to the treatment are virtually eliminated.  Adult stem cells offer a unique alternative to embryonic research because they don’t require a donor.

                        Although there are some doubts about adult stem cell research against embryonic, it has worked before and will continue to work to cure diseases.  Some scientists believe that embryonic cells have the potential for universal applications.  However, adult stem cells may also be easier to control since they already possess the ability to produce the needed cells simply by being placed in the vicinity of the damaged tissue. (Bohlin).  On the contrary, many scientists don’t find it necessary to continue fighting for funds for adult stem cell research, because embryonic stem cell research has worked and continues to work.  Not much more research is necessary.  A patient and famous actor such as Christopher Reeves, fought an enormous fight for research on embryonic stem cell research, and his legacy is still fighting today. The Washington Post revealed to the world on June 1, 1995 that Reeves, best known for his role as Superman, “was paralyzed and could not breathe without the help of a respirator after breaking his neck in a riding accident in Culpeper, Va.”(Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research). Reeves believed that embryonic stem cells should and could be able to cure his paralysis. Unfortunately, he suffered a quick death from an unfortunate illness he obtained from bedsores.  His wife set up a famous website now known as the Christopher and Dana Reeve foundation which states that “embryonic stem cells have the capacity to become any cell in the body without being able to develop into a complete human being; they are immortal and seem to be able to divide without limitation; and they can be genetically manipulated with great ease, which gives them enormous therapeutic utility.” (Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research). Which highlights the Reeve’s family believed truly there was no controversy over this study simply because the study can stop the cell from developing into an actual human being.   And furthermore his belief is backed up by his foundation, which recognizes that responsible stem cell research involves the careful orchestration of scientific and ethical issues and it believes that the 2007 Amended National Academies of Science 2005 Guidelines for Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research strike a proper balance.   However, in 1995 embryonic stem cell research was more prone to cure these diseases.  Nevertheless now, with new research, if Reeves were still alive, he may have wanted to push for more funding of adult stem cells, which will soon be able to cure diseases and possibly the one he had. 

            More federal funding is entirely necessary for adult stem cell research. There are future perspectives on adult stem cell research to treat low blood supply, baldness, missing teeth, deafness, blindness and vision improvement, and even bone regenerations. (Avasthi).  It also is used to treat diseases such as Diabetes, and Parkinson’s.  Funding should continue because stem cells can also be used as model systems to understand basic biological processes and disease states and tools in drug discovery, allowing researchers to pin-point specific possible side effects before clinical trials.  These trials will help researchers understand cell differentiation (McCormick and Scott) thus giving us more promising results. Furthermore, more funding is necessary in the United States because a possible “brain drain” could happen – when people of high technical knowledge move out of their country normally due to conflict, or lack of opportunity.  Consequently, brilliant scientists could potentially move to China because of their immense studies and endless opportunities regarding adult stem cell research. For example, America sparked a lucky case when Albert Einstein moved to the United States due to conflict in Germany and ultimately gave us electricity.  As far as adult stem cell research goes, America would play the role of Germany (the country at loss) and China (the country at gain) would play the role of Albert Einstein.  Thus emphasizing how important it is to keep up with research because there could be many potential losses like Germany had with Einstein.  This is a necessary and valid issue arising due to the ethical and controversy of stem cell research.  If more federal funding is given for adult stem cell research, scientists will hopefully remain in the United States and continue research on adult cells.  On the contrary, this “brain drain” could consequently make all the embryonic stem cell research scientists emigrate, causing America to lose more scientists.  This is why encouragement and money should be placed on the adult stem cell research, so more scientists can get involved and work with adult stem cells keeping America from losing scientists. 

            America’s current President, Barack Obama has recently lifted the restraints on embryonic research placed by President Bush.  Obama states, ““I strongly support expanding research on stem cells. I believe that the restrictions that President Bush has placed on funding of human embryonic stem cell research have handcuffed our scientists and hindered our ability to compete with other nations. As president, I will lift the current administration’s ban on federal funding of research.” (Cell News.)  Bush previously placed constraints on Embryonic research but allowed federal funding for the current embryonic lines at the time.  Although I don’t believe in embryonic research, Bush was headed in the right direction to ending the issue.  Now, America has a lot of work to step forward by moving in the right direction.  First, America needs to increase federal funding for adult stem cell research.  Americans need to petition for the same rights that Bush had applied so more federal funding will go towards adult stem cell research.  Also, with the current funding America has now, researchers need to consistently push for more federal funding.  Soon, America will get funding and we will be the leading nation in scientific discoveries as well as curing diseases we never thought possible. 

Works Cited

“Barack Obama on Stem Cell Research.” Weblog post. Cell News. 2 Sept.             2008. 16 Apr. 2009 <http://cellnews-blog.blogspot.com/2008/09/barack-obama-on-stem-cell-            research.html>.

Bohlin, Dr. Ray. “The Controversy Over Stem Cell Research.” Stem Cell Research. 30             Mar. 2009 <http.//www.leaderu.com/science/stemcellresearch.html>.

“Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research. Christopher and Dana Reeve Foundation.” Christopher & Dana Reeve Foundation. Today’s Care. Tomorrow’s Cure. 2009. 2009 Reeve Foundation. 16 Apr. 2009 <http://www.christopherreeve.org/site/c.ddJFKRNoFiG/b.4048063/k.BDDB/Home.htm>.

Romano, Lois. “Riding Accident Paralyzes Actor Christopher Reeve.” Riding Accident             Paralyzes Actor Christopher Reeve 1 June 1995: A01.             <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A99660-1995Jun1.html>

McCormick, Jennifer B., and Scott, Christopher. “The stem-cell century: a new epoch             and fresh challenges. (Essay Review).” Perspectives in Biology and Medicine.              52.1 (2009). Expanded Academic ASAP. 10 March 2009.             <http://find.galegroup.com/itx/infomark.do?contentSet=IAC-            Documents&docType=IAC&type=retrieve&tabID=T002&prodId=EAIM&docI            d=A194332272&userGroupName=txshracd2573&version=1.0&searchType=            AdvancedSearchForm&source=gale>

Sachin Avasthi, R.N. Srivastava, Ajai Singh and Manoj Srivastava. “Stem cell: past,             present and future—a review article. (Clinical Knowledge).” Internet Journal             of Medical Update. Jan.2008. Expanded Academics ASAP. 5 March 2009.             <http://find.galegroup.com/itx/retrieve.do?contentSet=IAC-            Documents&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&qrySerId=Locale%28en%2C%2C            %29%3AFQE%3D%28ke%2CNone%2C6%29adult+%3AAnd%3AFQE%3D            %28ke%2CNone%2C18%29stem+cell+research%24&sgHitCountType=Non            e&inPS=true&sort=DateDescend&searchType=AdvancedSearchForm&tabID            =T00             &prodId=EAIM&searchId=R1&currentPosition=15&userGroupName=txshra            cd2573&docId=A187844323&docType=IAC>

Stem Cell Research Paper

Stem cell research is a major issue in our day in age, which is why it is such a controversial issue.  The ability for scientists to use stem cells in their research, leads to advancements in curing diseases.  These cells differ immensely from other cells.  In fact, there is a large ethical debate centered on research involving creation, usage, and destruction of human embryonic stem cells.  However, not all stem cell research involves these ethical debates including adult stem cell research.  In fact, much success and potential has been demonstrated from research using adult stem cells.(Avasthi).  In addition, if research is not pursued then a possible “brain drain” where people of high technical knowledge move out of their country normally due to conflict, or lack of opportunity will occur.  This is why I believe more federal funding should be promised to research on adult stem cells as opposed to that of embryonic stem cells because adult stem cells don’t have ethical issues, and there could be a possibility of a “brain drain” in the future.    

             In order to understand stem cells you must understand that all stem cells have the ability to differentiate into any type of cell.  Most tissues of our bodies possess stem cells that can reproduce the different cells required in tissue.  Bone marrow stem cells can produce the many different cells of the blood.  These were given the name stem cells, since they are seen as the stem of a plant that produces all the “branches and leaves” of that tissue. (Bohlin).  First and foremost, stem cells are able to divide throughout life and give rise to cells that can become highly specialized and take the place of cells that die or are lost. (Avasthi).  Secondly, they can be used under certain physiologic or experimental conditions.  And Lastly, The National Review states they have the ability to develop into any tissue in the body.  For example, these cells are able to develop into cells that will help with many diseases, including, Parkinson’s disease, spinal cord injury, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, hearing and vision loss, and muscular dystrophy. (Grayling).

            Scientists are mainly researching with two main types of stem cells, embryonic and adult stem cells.  Embryonic stem cell research is the more controversial one of the two.  This may be because embryonic stem cells are derived from embryos at a developmental stage before the time of implantation would normally occur in the uterus. (Avasthi).  Some argue that because the embryo has the potential to be a person, its moral worth is the same as a human being. (McCormick, and Scott).  This, for some, means that stem cell research is research of an existing human being, thus making this research unethical.  Some favor embryonic stem cell research because they are capable of forming all the tissues of the body.  Therefore, some scientists find it the most promising for treatment of degenerative diseases. 

However, many scientists and I disagree.  We believe in adult stem cell research because of its moral content and its endless possibilities.  Because adult stem cell research can actually be retrieved from the individual requiring the therapy and treatment, there is nothing ethically incorrect about this research.  In fact, it has recently been shown that certain types of stem cells are not limited to producing cells for the tissue in which they reside.  For instance, bone marrow stem cells can produce skeletal muscle, neural, cardiac muscle, and liver cells.  Bone marrow stem cells can even migrate to these tissues via the circulatory system. (Bohlin).  

            There is ultimately no controversy over adult stem cell research.  This is because the stem cells can be retrieved from the individual who is actually receiving the therapy and also because it is not destroying an embryo.  While embryonic stem cells might be rejected by the immune system, adult stem cells carry an increased potential of not causing any immune complications. (Bohlin).  This highlights the advantages of previously unknown adult stem cells and their unexpected ability to produce numerous types of cells.  Furthermore, because adult stem cells could be harvested from the individual needing the therapy and reinserted back into that very same individual, all rejection problems to the treatment are virtually eliminated.  Adult stem cells offer a unique alternative to embryonic research because they don’t require a donor.

            Embryonic research is a process that requires killing an embryo.  This brings about a serious question, is this ethical?  And to what extent may we consider embryonic stem cell research ethical?  What beings should we be able to classify as “persons?” Grayling likes to use the metaphor of humans to a fish.  He claims that of the billions of eggs laid by fish, only about 0.5 percent hatch.  Humans are not much less lavish.  Every year hundreds of billions of spermatozoa die before reaching an ovum, and billions of ova are expelled unfertilized in menstrual cycles.  An estimated quarter of all pregnancies spontaneously terminate before the sixth week; and overall, about one in five pregnancies spontaneously terminate before 20 weeks.  We can obviously see his opinion on embryonic stem cell research; it’s not unethical.  But just because some pregnancies “don’t work out,” doesn’t mean we have the right to say embryonic research is ethical and in moral standing.  In fact, I believe it’s even more dishonorable.  If pregnancies are so rare, then why is it okay to use the “left over” stem cells for research that was used in in-vitro fertilization for a couple?  What if the woman needs her eggs later on when her pregnancy doesn’t work out?  On the contrary, if the woman consents to the usage of her spare embryos, can research simply rely on these few eggs to do their research? This could start the pattern of a rather “slippery slope.”  If we rely on the spare embryos and use federal funding on this, ultimately, women could be more likely to use in-vitro.  For those who are pro-embryonic research, this could be great news.  However, this could mean less children are being adopted, and maybe even one day in-vitro will have enough funding to allow couples to chose the eye color and sex of their child.  This slope could ultimately lead to disaster.  Moreover, many people are firm believers that human personhood starts shortly after conception.  For many, human life is considered sacred and life, they believe, it truly begins when a sperm cell fertilizes an egg cell.

                        Although there are some doubts about adult stem cell research against embryonic, it has worked before and will continue to work to cure diseases.  Some scientists believe that embryonic cells have the potential for universal applications.  However, adult stem cells may also be easier to control since they already possess the ability to produce the needed cells simply by being placed in the vicinity of the damaged tissue. (Bohlin).  On the contrary, many scientists don’t find it necessary to continue fighting for funds for adult stem cell research, because embryonic stem cell research has worked and continues to work.  Not much more research is necessary.  A patient such as Christopher Reeves, a famous actor, fought an enormous fight for continuing research of embryonic stem cell research, and his legacy is still continuing fighting today. The Washington Post revealed to the world on June 1, 1995 that Reeves, best known for his role as Superman, was paralyzed and could not breathe without the help of a respirator after breaking his neck in a riding accident in Culpeper, Va.  Reeves believed that embryonic stem cells should and could be able to cure his paralysis. Unfortunately, he suffered a quick death from an unfortunate illness he obtained from bedsores.  His wife set up a famous website now known as the Christopher and Dana Reeves foundation which states that embryonic stem cells have the capacity to become any cell in the body without being able to develop into a complete human being; they are immortal and seem to be able to divide without limitation; and they can be genetically manipulated with great ease, which gives them enormous therapeutic utility.  And furthermore his foundation recognizes that responsible stem cell research involves the careful orchestration of scientific and ethical issues and it believes that the 2007 Amended National Academies of Science 2005 Guidelines for Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research strike a proper balance.  However, in 1995 embryonic stem cell research was more prone to cure these diseases.  Nevertheless now, with new research, if Reeves were still alive, he may have wanted to push for more funding of adult stem cells, which will soon be able to cure diseases and possibly the one he had. 

            More federal funding is entirely necessary for adult stem cell research. There are future perspectives on adult stem cell research to treat low blood supply, baldness, missing teeth, deafness, blindness and vision improvement, and even bone regenerations. (Avasthi).  It also is used to treat diseases such as Diabetes, and Parkinson’s.  Funding should continue because stem cells can also be used as model systems to understand basic biological processes and disease states and tools in drug discovery, allowing researchers to pin-point specific possible side effects before clinical trials.  These trials will help researchers understand cell differentiation (McCormick and Scott) thus giving us more promising results. Furthermore, more funding is necessary in the United States because a possible “brain drain” could happen – when people of high technical knowledge move out of their country normally due to conflict, or lack of opportunity.  Consequently, brilliant scientists could potentially move to China because of their immense studies and endless opportunities regarding adult stem cell research. For example, America sparked a lucky case when Albert Einstein moved to the United States due to conflict in Germany and ultimately gave us electricity.  As far as adult stem cell research goes, America would play the role of Germany and China would play the role of Albert Einstein.  Thus emphasizing how important it is to keep up with research because there could be many potential losses like Germany did with Einstein.  This is a necessary and valid issue arising due to the ethical and controversy of stem cell research.  If more federal funding is given for adult stem cell research, scientists will hopefully remain in the United States and continue research on adult cells.  On the contrary, this “brain drain” could consequently make all the embryonic stem cell research scientists emigrate, causing America to lose more scientists.  This is why encouragement and money should be placed on the adult stem cell research, so more scientists can get involved and work with adult stem cells keeping America from losing scientists. 

            America’s current President, Barack Obama has recently lifted the restraints on embryonic research placed by President Bush.  Obama states, ““I strongly support expanding research on stem cells. I believe that the restrictions that President Bush has placed on funding of human embryonic stem cell research have handcuffed our scientists and hindered our ability to compete with other nations. As president, I will lift the current administration’s ban on federal funding of research.” (Cell News.)  Bush previously placed constraints on Embryonic research but allowed federal funding for the current embryonic lines at the time.  Although I don’t believe in embryonic research, Bush was headed in the right direction to ending this issue.  Now, America has a lot of work to step forward by moving in the right direction.  First, America needs to increase federal funding for adult stem cell research.  Americans need to petition for the same rights that Bush had applied so more federal funding will go towards adult stem cell research.  Also, with the current funding America has now, researchers need to consistently push for more federal funding.  Soon, America will get funding and we will be the leading nation in scientific discoveries as well as curing diseases we never thought possible. 

Stem Cell Research Paper

Stem cell research is a major issue in our day in age, which is why it is such a controversial issue.  The ability for scientists to use stem cells in their research, leads to advancements in curing diseases.  These cells differ immensely from other cells.  In fact, there is a large ethical debate centered on research involving creation, usage, and destruction of human embryonic stem cells.  However, not all stem cell research involves these ethical debates including adult stem cell research.  In fact, much success and potential has been demonstrated from research using adult stem cells.(Avasthi).  This is why I believe more federal funding should be promised to research on adult stem cells as opposed to that of embryonic stem cells because adult stem cells don’t have ethical issues, and there could be a possibility of a “brain drain” in the future.    

            All stem cells have the ability to differentiate into any type of cell.  Most tissues of our bodies possess stem cells that can reproduce the different cells required in tissue.  Bone marrow stem cells can produce the many different cells of the blood.  These were coined the name stem cells, since they are seen as the stem of a plant that produces all the “branches and leaves” of that tissue. (Bohlin).  First and foremost, stem cells are able to divide throughout life and give rise to cells that can become highly specialized and take the place of cells that die or are lost. (Avasthi).  Secondly, they can be used under certain physiologic or experimental conditions.  And Lastly, they have the ability to develop into any tissue in the body. (Custom Stem cells article).   For example, these cells are able to develop into cells that will help with many diseases, including, Parkinson’s disease, spinal cord injury, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, hearing and vision loss, and muscular dystrophy. (Grayling).

            Scientists are mainly researching with two main types of stem cells, embryonic and adult stem cells.  Embryonic stem cell research is the more controversial one of the two.  This may be because embryonic stem cells are derived from embryos at a developmental stage before the time of implantation would normally occur in the uterus. (Avasthi).  Some argue that because the embryo has the potential to be a person, its moral worth is the same as a human being. (McCormick, and Scott).  This, for some, means that stem cell research is research of an existing human being, thus making this research unethical.  Some favor embryonic stem cell research because they are capable of forming all the tissues of the body.  Therefore, some scientists find it the most promising for treatment of degenerative diseases. 

However, I and the other half of scientists disagree.  We believe in adult stem cell research because of its moral content and its endless possibilities.  Because adult stem cell research can actually be retrieved from the individual requiring the therapy and treatment, there is nothing ethically incorrect about this research.  In fact, it has recently been shown that certain types of stem cells are not limited to producing cells for the tissue in which they reside.  For instance, bone marrow stem cells can produce skeletal muscle, neural, cardiac muscle, and liver cells.  Bone marrow stem cells can even migrate to these tissues via the circulatory system. (Bohlin).  

            There is ultimately no controversy over adult stem cell research.  This is because the stem cells can be retrieved from the individual who is actually receiving the therapy and also because it is not destroying an embryo.  While embryonic stem cells might be rejected by the immune system, adult stem cells carry an increased potential of not causing any immune complications. (Bohlin).  This highlights the advantages of previously unknown adult stem cells and their unexpected ability to produce numerous types of cells.  Furthermore, because adult stem cells could be harvested from the individual needing the therapy and reinserted back into that very same individual, all rejection problems to the treatment are virtually eliminated.  Adult stem cells offer a unique alternative to embryonic research because they don’t require a donor, as well as it is a more ethical choice. 

            Embryonic research is a process that requires killing an embryo.  This brings about a serious question, is this ethical?  And to what extent may we consider embryonic stem cell research ethical?  What beings should we be able to classify as “persons?” Grayling likes to use the metaphor of humans to a fish.  He claims that of the billions of eggs laid by fish, only about 0.5 percent hatch.  Humans are not much less lavish.  Every year hundreds of billions of spermatozoa die before reaching an ovum, and billions of ova are expelled unfertilized in menstrual cycles.  An estimated quarter of all pregnancies spontaneously terminate before the sixth week; and overall, about one in five pregnancies spontaneously terminate before 20 weeks.  We can obviously see his opinion on embryonic stem cell research; it’s not unethical.  But just because some pregnancies “don’t work out,” doesn’t mean we have the right to say embryonic research is ethical and in moral standing.  In fact, I believe it’s even more dishonorable.  If pregnancies are so rare, then why is it okay to use the “left over” stem cells for research that was used in in-vitro fertilization for a couple?  What if the woman needs her eggs later on when her pregnancy doesn’t work out?  On the contrary, if the woman consents to the usage of her spare embryos, can research simply rely on these few eggs to do their research? This could start the pattern of a rather “slippery slope.”  If we rely on the spare embryos and use federal funding on this, ultimately, women could be more likely to use in-vitro.  For those who are pro-embryonic research, this could be great news.  However, this could mean less children are being adopted, and maybe even one day in-vitro will have enough funding to allow couples to chose the eye color and sex of their child.  This slope could ultimately lead to disaster.  Moreover, many people are firm believers that human personhood starts shortly after conception.  Human life is sacred and life truly begins when a sperm cell fertilizes an egg cell.

                        Although there are some doubts about adult stem cell research against embryonic, it has worked before and will continue to work to cure diseases.  Some scientists believe that embryonic cells have the potential for universal applications.  However, adult stem cells may also be easier to control since they already possess the ability to produce the needed cells simply by being placed in the vicinity of the damaged tissue. (Bohlin).

            More federal funding is entirely necessary for adult stem cell research. There are future perspectives on adult stem cell research to treat low blood supply, baldness, missing teeth, deafness, blindness and vision improvement, and even bone regenerations. (Avasthi).  Funding should continue because stem cells can also be used as model systems to understand basic biological processes and disease states and tools in drug discovery, allowing researchers to pin-point specific possible side effects before clinical trials.  These trials will help researchers understand cell differentiation (McCormick and Scott) thus giving us more promising results.  Furthermore, more funding is necessary in the United States because a possible “brain drain” could happen – when people of high technical knowledge move out of their country normally due to conflict, or lack of opportunity.  Consequently, brilliant scientists could potentially move to China because of their immense studies and endless opportunities regarding adult stem cell research.  America sparked a lucky case when Albert Einstein moved to the United States due to conflict in Germany and ultimately gave us electricity.  As far as adult stem cell research goes, America would play the role of Germany and China would play the role of Albert Einstein.

            America’s current President, Barack Obama has recently lifted the restraints on embryonic research placed by President Bush.  Obama states, ““I strongly support expanding research on stem cells. I believe that the restrictions that President Bush has placed on funding of human embryonic stem cell research have handcuffed our scientists and hindered our ability to compete with other nations. As president, I will lift the current administration’s ban on federal funding of research.” (Cell News.)  Bush previously placed constraints on Embryonic research but allowed federal funding for the current embryonic lines at the time.  Although I don’t believe in embryonic research, Bush was headed in the right direction to ending this issue.  Now, America has a lot of work to step forward by moving in the right direction.  First, America needs to increase federal funding for adult stem cell research.  Americans need to petition for the same rights that Bush had applied so more federal funding will go towards adult stem cell research.  Also, with the current funding America has now, researchers need to consistently push for more federal funding.  Soon, America will get funding and we will be the leading nation in scientific discoveries as well as curing diseases we never thought possible. 

There is a large ethical debate centered on research involving creation, usage, and destruction of human embryonic stem cells.  However, not all stem cell research involves these ethical debates including adult stem cell research.  In fact, much success and potential has been demonstrated from research using adult stem cells.(Avasthi).  This is why I believe more federal funding should be promised to research of adult stem cell opposed to that of embryonic stem cells. 

·      I plan on beginning my paper with an opening such as my thesis, introducing my topic.  I will probably just use the paragraph I just posted as my opening (possibly elaborate) and then carry on to give background information.

·      I want to start very general because my topic is very, very detailed and I don’t want to lose the reader right away.

o          I may do this by discussing STEM cells in general giving definitions for embryonic stem cell research and adult stem cell research to prepare my reader for what they are about to read and give them some background.  It will basically talk about the success behind stem cell research (not too long of a paragraph I hope…)

·      Next, I may want to talk about certain viewpoints such as embryonic research and why people believe it is not ethically incorrect and I hope to back it up with my claim and with specific evidence.  More they say/I say stuff.

·      Next, with my rebuttal in the previous paragraph I hope to elaborate on the positives of Adult Stem cell research and why it is better.

·      Next paragraph I want to talk about how it can help with certain diseases and which ones and why they help with those to help prove this research is better reinforcing the need for funding.

·      Next, I want to go back to ethical argument.  There are some ways to make cells look a lot like embryo’s and also there are “spare” stem cells which labs end up throwing away if the invitro mother does not need them and some people argue that that is inevitably killing a human and is just the same as working on an embryonic stem cell that no one will use.  I want to prove both of those unethical also.

·      I want to discuss the BENEFITS involved in using adult stem cell research opposed to embryonic stem cell research towards the end of my paper to leave the reader satisfied with what they read. 

·      That is roughly what I want to do.  Clearly when I write my paper, I will know what is appropriate where etc.  But lastly, I will just have a closing finishing and concluding my argument. 

The Ultimate Push for Adult Stem Cell Research

            Current research is going on proving that adult stem cell research is valid and is very possible in humans.  I understand why people do not think its possible, because they are stubborn to the fact that embryonic research is the only way to go.  I too, was at first convinced it was the only form of research valid for curing diseases, cloning, and turning cells into all sorts of things such as muscle cells or a growing part of a heart.

            However, researchers have proven the stubborn crowd, including myself wrong.  Researchers discussed in The National Review how they would no longer involve the deliberate ending of the lives of human embryos, and would rather use “teratomas” which is produced by incomplete fertilization to clone stem cells.   Emphasizing how embryonic research would no longer be needed.  In addition, it has be proven that stem cells can be made from an individual stem cell thus improving research to prevent diseases, and to help tissue’s in the body grow. 

            This argument may seem typical to make, but it’s not and it’s a rather difficult one to achieve.  Some say it is impossible, and research has only been done on animals.  Research has been done where scientists have actually seen adult stem cells transform in a Petri-dish in front of their eyes further highlighting its immense amount of possibilities. On the contrast, pro embryo researchers think it will be a long time until achieved, and if so, it wouldn’t be perfected for a long time.   They also state how left over embryos from in-vitro should be able to be used in research.  This is one case, which could be useful if the mother consents.  But is it humane?  Is that embryo a life?  Those who say embryonic research is the only way are naïve to the restriction of life.  If that is the only way – it needs to end.  Thus emphasizing the need to continue the research on adult stem cell research. 

            Other researchers have investigated how it is possible to reprogram adult human cells into an embryo-like state, which would ultimately be the end of embryonic research.  They have done this successfully in labs with exposing skin cells to four “transcription factors” which are naturally occurring chemicals that regulate genes, and load them with viruses, and after they grew in the lab dish, the skin cells turned into ones that closely resembled embryonic stem cells.  So why stop there?  Why not move a little further?  Embryonic research is inhumane.  And in my opinion, adult stem cell research is more humane and the government should fund this research so proof can be shown that embryos are no longer needed for stem cell research and the curing of diseases. 

Becky Lyus

“Is there a way to pursue the possible benefits of embryonic stem-cell research without killing human embryos?(The Week)(Brief Article) The National Review.  56.24 (2004) p6 Expanded Academics ASAP. 5 March 2009.  <http://find.galegroup.com/itx/infomark.do?contentSet=IAC-Documents&docType=IAC&type=retrieve&tabID=T003&prodId=EAIM&docId=A131003764&userGroupName=txshracd2573&version=1.0&searchType=AdvancedSearchForm&source=gale> In “Is there a way to pursue the possible benefits of embryonic stem-cell research without killing human embryos?(The Week)(Brief Article)” The National Review discusses the possibility of using stem-cell research without killing human embryos.  The Nation Review does this by discussing how they would no longer involve the deliberate ending of the lives of human embryos, rather use “teratomas” which is produced by incomplete fertilization to clone stem-cells.  This article was written in National Review, so I believe the author was intentionally giving a short overview to the nation about the upcoming studies on how to improve and continue stem-cell research in a more accepted manner. The National Review discusses these possibilities in order to reveal to readers the possibility of stem-cell research and the upcoming studies to help continue the research.  I learned about “teratomas” in this article and its possible use in the upcoming study.  This gives me a common ground to work with and another term I can research and find more about this research process.

Sachin Avasthi, R.N. Srivastava, Ajai Singh and Manoj Srivastava. “Stem cell: past, present and future—a review article. (Clinical Knowledge).” Internet Journal of Medical Update. Jan.2008. Expanded Academics ASAP. 5 March 2009. <http://find.galegroup.com/itx/retrieve.do?contentSet=IAC-Documents&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&qrySerId=Locale%28en%2C%2C%29%3AFQE%3D%28ke%2CNone%2C6%29adult+%3AAnd%3AFQE%3D%28ke%2CNone%2C18%29stem+cell+research%24&sgHitCountType=None&inPS=true&sort=DateDescend&searchType=AdvancedSearchForm&tabID=T002&prodId=EAIM&searchId=R1&currentPosition=15&userGroupName=txshracd2573&docId=A187844323&docType=IAC> In “Stem cell: past, present and future – a review article” Avasthi, R.N Srivastava, Singh, and Manoj Srivastava  highlight all the important facts and procedures stem cells are capable and incapable of doing.  The authors discuss massive amounts of research on the subject while also describing the difference between embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells. Furthermore, they discuss several diseases adult stem cells are able to cure and what they may be able to cure in the future.  The article was published in a medical update journal in a magazine which may mean the author’s were targeting the article towards an audience interested in medical papers while also a broad audience by means of placing this in a magazine.  The authors purpose is to inform the readers of developing research and why stem cells are so important in curing disease while they also include facts so the audience has a better understanding.  This article I could use to support my side of adult stem cell research because it contains certain experiments in which adult stem cell research was successful.
 

Grayling, Mindfields A.C. “From ‘pro-life’ to anti-ethics.(Commentary)(Stem cell research)(Cover story)” New Scientist. 22 December 2007. Expanded Academics ASAP. 5 March 2009. <http://find.galegroup.com/itx/retrieve.do?contentSet=IAC-Documents&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&qrySerId=Locale%28en%2C%2C%29%3AFQE%3D%28ke%2CNone%2C6%29adult+%3AAnd%3AFQE%3D%28ke%2CNone%2C18%29stem+cell+research%24&sgHitCountType=None&inPS=true&sort=DateDescend&searchType=AdvancedSearchForm&tabID=T002&prodId=EAIM&searchId=R1&currentPosition=17&userGroupName=txshracd2573&docId=A173098651&docType=IAC> In “From ‘pro-life’ to anti-ethics.(Commentary)(Stem cell research)(Cover story), Grayling argues how adult stem cell research will gain greater simplicity, straightforwardness, and safety in stem-cell research.  Grayling discusses what stem cell research is primarily for – curing diseases.  She continues her argument by giving research on embryonic stem cells not reaching adulthood causing grief to families while also emphasizing how people who do use embryonic stem cells think that is just as important as a person.  While this is presented in a scientific magazine to get her opinion on embryonic stem cell research out there,  it may also be directed at a more specific group with her use of difficult words and rather poignant opinion.  Grayling wrote this article in order to inform people of the hurt embryonic stem cell research is causing and the necessity to fight for adult research.  This is going to be useful to use the persuasion in my paper.  She was very persuasive to me by using examples such as comparing women’s ability to become barren with a fish’s ability to highlight the difficulty of level of pregnancy and the importance of an embryonic cell.

Rossant, Janet. “Stem cells: the magic brew. (Report).” Nature. 19 July 2007. Expanded Academics ASAP. 5 March 2009. <http://find.galegroup.com/itx/retrieve.do?contentSet=IAC-Documents&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&qrySerId=Locale%28en%2C%2C%29%3AFQE%3D%28ke%2CNone%2C6%29adult+%3AAnd%3AFQE%3D%28ke%2CNone%2C18%29stem+cell+research%24&sgHitCountType=None&inPS=true&sort=DateDescend&searchType=AdvancedSearchForm&tabID=T002&prodId=EAIM&searchId=R1&currentPosition=31&userGroupName=txshracd2573&docId=A185560709&docType=IAC> In “Stem cells: the magic brew,” Rossant informs the readers of the simple method for changing differentiated adult cells into stem cells.  Rossant discusses the immense possibility that humans too can undergo what mice and other animals have undergone in this process.  She is firm in her believe and provides stubborn evidence regarding her belief.  Her article appears in Nature, a scientific magazine/journal which may mean she was targeting people of scientific interest on new research on transforming adult cells to make stem cells.   Rossant includes her examples in order to persuade the audience that it is possible to go through with this research and that it has a great possibility to work.  I think this is useful for my paper because it has concrete evidence on her theories that this works.  I think this will be useful to persuade my readers that it is better than embryonic stem cell research. 

Geddes, Linda and Marshall, Jessica. “From adult to embryo: we are one step closer to treating diseases with stem cells made from a person’s own adult cells. (This week: Stem cells).” New Scientist. 9 June 2007. Expanded Academics ASAP. 5 March 2009. <http://find.galegroup.com/itx/infomark.do?contentSet=IAC-Documents&docType=IAC&type=retrieve&tabID=T002&prodId=EAIM&docId=A164829925&userGroupName=txshracd2573&version=1.0&searchType=AdvancedSearchForm&source=gale> In “From adult to embryo: we are one step closer to treating diseases with stem cells made from a person’s own adult cells,” Geddes and Marshall discuss several advances in stem cell research that may actually be milestones to accomplishing creation of stem cells from an individuals own cells opposed to needing a donated egg or embryo.  The authors begin by explaining this research while also giving examples with mice and their success while also discussing the 20 % chance of failure.  Furthermore, they discuss how it is unlike the much negatively exposed cloning of Dolly, because the adult stem cell is transferred into an egg of a different mother.  This is an article presented in the New Scientist, which proposes the idea that they wanted people interested in science to read it.  However, it is a magazine/journal so it is a more general field meaning it is allowed for all audiences interested in this uprising event.  This article will be useful in my paper because it gives me fundamental evidence that stem cells can be made from an individuals stem cell, further proving my point that embryonic stem cell research should stop.

McCormick, Jennifer B., and Scott, Christopher. “The stem-cell century: a new epoch and fresh challenges. (Essay Review).” Perspectives in Biology and Medicine.  52.1 (2009). Expanded Academic ASAP. 10 March 2009. <http://find.galegroup.com/itx/infomark.do?contentSet=IAC-Documents&docType=IAC&type=retrieve&tabID=T002&prodId=EAIM&docId=A194332272&userGroupName=txshracd2573&version=1.0&searchType=AdvancedSearchForm&source=gale> McCormick and Scott’s “The stem-cell century: a new epoch and fresh challenges. (Essay Review),” argues that embryonic stem cell research is valid, as well as providing several sides to their argument.  The author’s provide interesting metaphor’s to connect with the reader displaying embryo research is no different than a person crushing an acorn, restricting it of life.  The language and article in which this was written, clearly targets an audience who is interested in the argument against stem cell research and for those who want evidence to prove their point.   Smith includes Bush’s policy on funding restrictions in order to display the reason why people are looking for alternative ways of stem cell research.  This will be useful in my paper as the opposite view to my personal opinion.  They say that adult stem cell research is what we are resorting to by the lack of lines due to Bush’s restrictions and they also include how it is of moral conduct.

Cyranoski, David. “Stem cells: a national project.” Nature. 17 Jan 2008. Expanded Academic ASAP. 10 March 2009. <http://find.galegroup.com/itx/infomark.do?contentSet=IAC-Documents&docType=IAC&type=retrieve&tabID=T002&prodId=EAIM&docId=A193476505&userGroupName=txshracd2573&version=1.0&searchType=AdvancedSearchForm&source=gale>  David Cyranoski’s “Stem cells: a national project,” argues that it is possible to reprogram adult human cells into an embryo-like state.  Cyranoski discuses what an ‘induced pluropotent stem cell’ is and how they plan on creating this adult cell. Cyranoski includes research and increased amounts of money Japan is putting into research.   Because this article is found in the Nature magazine, it is clearly targeted at a general audience who is interested in biology.  This magazine is written with clear language targeted at all audience who are interested in the subject. Cyranoski includes this information in order to inform people that research is being done, more amounts of money are being contributed, and Japan has a plan to make this work.  I plan on using this article in my paper to further inforce that research is being done about adult stem cell research and it is soon on the way.  There are formulas that work, and they just need to make it perfect.  So without embryonic research, it will be okay because soon adult stem cell research will be perfected.

“Custom stem cells. (Upfront)(skin cells can be used for human cloning)(Brief article).” New Scientist. 24 Nov 2007. Expanded Academic ASAP. 10 March 2009. <http://find.galegroup.com/itx/retrieve.do?contentSet=IAC-Documents&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&qrySerId=Locale%28en%2C%2C%29%3AFQE%3D%28ke%2CNone%2C6%29embryo%3AAnd%3AFQE%3D%28ke%2CNone%2C9%29stem+cell%3AAnd%3AFQE%3D%28ke%2CNone%2C8%29research%24&sgHitCountType=None&inPS=true&sort=DateDescend&searchType=AdvancedSearchForm&tabID=T002&prodId=EAIM&searchId=R3&currentPosition=30&userGroupName=txshracd2573&docId=A172011171&docType=IAC> The author of “Custom stem cells. (Upfront)(Skin cells can be used for human cloning)(Brief article), wrote this article to inform the reader that embryo’s are no longer needed to treat Parkinson’s and diabetes.  The author demonstrated how they exposed skin cells to four “transcription factors”-naturally occurring chemicals that regulate genes.  They loaded them with viruses, and after they grew in the lab dish, the skin cells turned into ones that closely resembled embryonic stem cells.  This article was written in the New Scientist, so it targets audiences interested in biology.  However, by the use of language and the noted no author, it appears to be a casual article targeting anyone interested in this upcoming world phenomenon.  The author included this example in order to explain to the audience that these generated look alike “embryo cells” have the ability to turn into any tissue in the body.  This is a great resource for my paper because it actually has the steps they took to make this look a like “embryo cell” and how it has cured diseases.  This will help my argument.

Nelson, Erin. “Consent to embryo donation for human embryonic stem cell research.(Canada).” Law Review 16.2 (Spring 2008): 5(22). Expanded Academic ASAP. Gale. Texas Christian University. 10 Mar. 2009 <http://find.galegroup.com/itx/start.do?prodId=EAIM>

In “Consent to embryo donation for human embryonic stem cell research.(Canada),” Nelson discuses the legal issues upon embryonic research as well as the ethical issues.  Smith highlights the moral question of is the embryo a human being from the moment of fertilization, or is it “too rudimentary in… development to yet have interests and be the subject of moral duties.  This article is located in the Law Review, and has extensive research within it.  This may mean that this article is presented for people doing extensive research over the subject, and who are very interested in science, which we can infer by the sophisticated biological terms.  Nelsons purpose is to inform the readers of the moral issues and to inform the readers this embryonic research does not only affect women but men as well.  I can use this in my paper because it has plenty of research and gives more to an alternate side of the argument.

Condic, Maureen L. ”Getting stem cells right.(Opinion).” First Things: A Monthly Journal of Religion and Public Life 180 (Feb 2008): 10(3). Expanded Academic ASAP. Gale. Texas Christian University. 11 Mar. 2009 

<http://find.galegroup.com/itx/start.do?prodId=EAIM>  In “Getting stem cells right,” Condic argues that research should be unrestricted by all means. Condic states it is not unethical to destroy the human stem lines that we already have to compare with our new and advanced upcoming research on creating stem cells without embryos.  This article is displayed in a general magazine because it is an opinionated piece.  This means it is targeting all audiences and Condic wants everyone to know the argument at hand.  Smith’s purpose is to inform the readers it is okay to destroy the human embryo’s we already have in order to save the upcoming research.  This is a good source to use in my paper, because while it is an opinion, it has many things in the paper I could research as well as providing a valid point that it should be okay to destroy the embryos we already have donated if it is useful to science and reaching the goal of creating stem cells without the use of embryos.  

Becky Lyus

“Is there a way to pursue the possible benefits of embryonic stem-cell research without killing human embryos?(The Week)(Brief Article) The National Review.  56.24 (2004) p6 Expanded Academics ASAP. 5 March 2009.  <http://find.galegroup.com/itx/infomark.do?contentSet=IAC-Documents&docType=IAC&type=retrieve&tabID=T003&prodId=EAIM&docId=A131003764&userGroupName=txshracd2573&version=1.0&searchType=AdvancedSearchForm&source=gale> In “Is there a way to pursue the possible benefits of embryonic stem-cell research without killing human embryos?(The Week)(Brief Article)” The National Review discusses the possibility of using stem-cell research without killing human embryos.  The Nation Review does this by discussing how they would no longer involve the deliberate ending of the lives of human embryos, rather use “teratomas” which is produced by incomplete fertilization to clone stem-cells.  This article was written in National Review, so I believe the author was intentionally giving a short overview to the nation about the upcoming studies on how to improve and continue stem-cell research in a more accepted manner. The National Review discusses these possibilities in order to reveal to readers the possibility of stem-cell research and the upcoming studies to help continue the research.  I learned about “teratomas” in this article and its possible use in the upcoming study.  This gives me a common ground to work with and another term I can research and find more about this research process.

Sachin Avasthi, R.N. Srivastava, Ajai Singh and Manoj Srivastava. “Stem cell: past, present and future—a review article. (Clinical Knowledge).” Internet Journal of Medical Update. Jan.2008. Expanded Academics ASAP. 5 March 2009. <http://find.galegroup.com/itx/retrieve.do?contentSet=IAC-Documents&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&qrySerId=Locale%28en%2C%2C%29%3AFQE%3D%28ke%2CNone%2C6%29adult+%3AAnd%3AFQE%3D%28ke%2CNone%2C18%29stem+cell+research%24&sgHitCountType=None&inPS=true&sort=DateDescend&searchType=AdvancedSearchForm&tabID=T002&prodId=EAIM&searchId=R1&currentPosition=15&userGroupName=txshracd2573&docId=A187844323&docType=IAC> In “Stem cell: past, present and future – a review article” Avasthi, R.N Srivastava, Singh, and Manoj Srivastava  highlight all the important facts and procedures stem cells are capable and incapable of doing.  The authors discuss massive amounts of research on the subject while also describing the difference between embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells. Furthermore, they discuss several diseases adult stem cells are able to cure and what they may be able to cure in the future.  The article was published in a medical update journal in a magazine which may mean the author’s were targeting the article towards an audience interested in medical papers while also a broad audience by means of placing this in a magazine.  The authors purpose is to inform the readers of developing research and why stem cells are so important in curing disease while they also include facts so the audience has a better understanding.  This article I could use to support my side of adult stem cell research because it contains certain experiments in which adult stem cell research was successful.
 

Grayling, Mindfields A.C. “From ‘pro-life’ to anti-ethics.(Commentary)(Stem cell research)(Cover story)” New Scientist. 22 December 2007. Expanded Academics ASAP. 5 March 2009. <http://find.galegroup.com/itx/retrieve.do?contentSet=IAC-Documents&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&qrySerId=Locale%28en%2C%2C%29%3AFQE%3D%28ke%2CNone%2C6%29adult+%3AAnd%3AFQE%3D%28ke%2CNone%2C18%29stem+cell+research%24&sgHitCountType=None&inPS=true&sort=DateDescend&searchType=AdvancedSearchForm&tabID=T002&prodId=EAIM&searchId=R1&currentPosition=17&userGroupName=txshracd2573&docId=A173098651&docType=IAC> In “From ‘pro-life’ to anti-ethics.(Commentary)(Stem cell research)(Cover story), Grayling argues how adult stem cell research will gain greater simplicity, straightforwardness, and safety in stem-cell research.  Grayling discusses what stem cell research is primarily for – curing diseases.  She continues her argument by giving research on embryonic stem cells not reaching adulthood causing grief to families while also emphasizing how people who do use embryonic stem cells think that is more important than a person.  While this is presented in a scientific magazine to get her opinion on embryonic stem cell research out there,  it may also be directed at a more specific group with her use of difficult words and rather poignant opinion.  Grayling wrote this article in order to inform people of the hurt embryonic stem cell research is causing and the necessity to fight for adult research.  This is going to be useful to use the persuasion in my paper.  She was very persuasive to me by using examples such as comparing women’s ability to become barren with a fish’s ability to highlight the difficulty of level of pregnancy and the importance of an embryonic cell.

Rossant, Janet. “Stem cells: the magic brew. (Report).” Nature. 19 July 2007. Expanded Academics ASAP. 5 March 2009. <http://find.galegroup.com/itx/retrieve.do?contentSet=IAC-Documents&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&qrySerId=Locale%28en%2C%2C%29%3AFQE%3D%28ke%2CNone%2C6%29adult+%3AAnd%3AFQE%3D%28ke%2CNone%2C18%29stem+cell+research%24&sgHitCountType=None&inPS=true&sort=DateDescend&searchType=AdvancedSearchForm&tabID=T002&prodId=EAIM&searchId=R1&currentPosition=31&userGroupName=txshracd2573&docId=A185560709&docType=IAC> In “Stem cells: the magic brew,” Rossant informs the readers of the simple method for changing differentiated adult cells into stem cells.  Rossant discusses the immense possibility that humans too can undergo what mice and other animals have undergone in this process.  She is firm in her believe and provides stubborn evidence regarding her belief.  Her article appears in Nature, a scientific magazine/journal which may mean she was targeting people of scientific interest on new research on transforming adult cells to make stem cells.   Rossant includes her examples in order to persuade the audience that it is possible to go through with this research and that it has a great possibility to work.  I think this is useful for my paper because it has concrete evidence on her theories that this works.  I think this will be useful to persuade my readers that it is better than embryonic stem cell research. 

Geddes, Linda and Marshall, Jessica. “From adult to embryo: we are one step closer to treating diseases with stem cells made from a person’s own adult cells. (This week: Stem cells).” New Scientist. 9 June 2007. Expanded Academics ASAP. 5 March 2009. <http://find.galegroup.com/itx/infomark.do?contentSet=IAC-Documents&docType=IAC&type=retrieve&tabID=T002&prodId=EAIM&docId=A164829925&userGroupName=txshracd2573&version=1.0&searchType=AdvancedSearchForm&source=gale> In “From adult to embryo: we are one step closer to treating diseases with stem cells made from a person’s own adult cells,” Geddes and Marshall discuss several advances in stem cell research that may actually be milestones to accomplishing creation of stem cells from an individuals own cells opposed to needing a donated egg or embryo.  The authors begin by explaining this research while also giving examples with mice and their success while also discussing the 20 % chance of failure.  Furthermore, they discuss how it is unlike the much negatively exposed cloning of Dolly because the adult stem cell is transferred into an egg of a different mother.  This is an article presented in the New Scientist, which propses the idea that they wanted people interested in science to read it.  However, it is a magazine/journal so it is a more general field meaning it is allowed for all audiences interested in this uprising event.  This article will be useful in my paper because it gives me fundamental evidence that stem cells can be made from an individuals stem cells, further proving my point that embryonic stem cell research should stop.

McCormick, Jennifer B., and Scott, Christopher. “The stem-cell century: a new epoch and fresh challenges. (Essay Review).” Perspectives in Biology and Medicine.  52.1 (2009). Expanded Academic ASAP. 10 March 2009. <http://find.galegroup.com/itx/infomark.do?contentSet=IAC-Documents&docType=IAC&type=retrieve&tabID=T002&prodId=EAIM&docId=A194332272&userGroupName=txshracd2573&version=1.0&searchType=AdvancedSearchForm&source=gale> McCormick and Scott’s “The stem-cell century: a new epoch and fresh challenges. (Essay Review),” argues that embryonic stem cell research is valid, as well as providing several sides to their argument.  The author’s provide interesting metaphor’s to connect with the reader displaying embryo research is no different than a person crushing an acorn, restricting it of life.  The language and article in which this was written, clearly targets an audience who is interested in the argument against stem cell research and for those who want evidence to prove their point.   Smith includes Bush’s policy on funding restrictions in order to display the reason why people are looking for alternative ways of stem cell research.  This will be useful in my paper as the opposite view to my personal opinion.  They say that adult stem cell research is what we are resorting to by the lack of lines due to Bush’s restrictions and they also include how it is of moral conduct.

Cyranoski, David. “Stem cells: a national project.” Nature. 17 Jan 2008. Expanded Academic ASAP. 10 March 2009. <http://find.galegroup.com/itx/infomark.do?contentSet=IAC-Documents&docType=IAC&type=retrieve&tabID=T002&prodId=EAIM&docId=A193476505&userGroupName=txshracd2573&version=1.0&searchType=AdvancedSearchForm&source=gale>  David Cyranoski’s “Stem cells: a national project,” argues that it is possible to reprogram adult human cells into an embryo-like state.  Cyranoski discuses what an ‘induced pluropotent stem cell’ is and how they plan on creating this adult cell. Cyranoski includes research and increased amounts of money Japan is putting into research.   Because this article is found in the Nature magazine, it is clearly targeted at a general audience who is interested in biology.  This magazine is written with clear language targeted at all audience who are interested in the subject. Cyranoski includes this information in order to inform people that research is being done, more amounts of money are being contributed, and Japan has a plan to make this work.  I plan on using this article in my paper to further inforce that research is being done about adult stem cell research and it is soon on the way.  There are formulas that work, and they just need to make it perfect.  So without embryonic research, it will be okay because soon adult stem cell research will be perfected.

“Custom stem cells. (Upfront)(skin cells can be used for human cloning)(Brief article).” New Scientist. 24 Nov 2007. Expanded Academic ASAP. 10 March 2009. <http://find.galegroup.com/itx/retrieve.do?contentSet=IAC-Documents&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&qrySerId=Locale%28en%2C%2C%29%3AFQE%3D%28ke%2CNone%2C6%29embryo%3AAnd%3AFQE%3D%28ke%2CNone%2C9%29stem+cell%3AAnd%3AFQE%3D%28ke%2CNone%2C8%29research%24&sgHitCountType=None&inPS=true&sort=DateDescend&searchType=AdvancedSearchForm&tabID=T002&prodId=EAIM&searchId=R3&currentPosition=30&userGroupName=txshracd2573&docId=A172011171&docType=IAC> The author of “Custom stem cells. (Upfront)(Skin cells can be used for human cloning)(Brief article), wrote this article to inform the reader that embryo’s are no longer needed to treat Parkinson’s and diabetes.  The author demonstrated how they exposed skin cells to four “transcription factors”-naturally occurring chemicals that regulate genes.  They loaded them with viruses, and after they grew in the lab dish, the skin cells turned into ones that closely resembled embryonic stem cells.  This article was written in the New Scientist, so it was targeting audiences interested in biology.  However, by the use of language and the noted no author, it appears to be a casual article targeting anyone interested in this upcoming world phenomenon.  The author included this example in order to explain to the audience that these generated look alike “embryo cells” have the ability to turn into any tissue in the body.  This is a great resource for my paper because it actually has the steps they took to make this look a like “embryo cell” and how it has cured diseases.  This will help my argument.

Nelson, Erin. “Consent to embryo donation for human embryonic stem cell research.(Canada).” Law Review 16.2 (Spring 2008): 5(22). Expanded Academic ASAP. Gale. Texas Christian University. 10 Mar. 2009 <http://find.galegroup.com/itx/start.do?prodId=EAIM>

In “Consent to embryo donation for human embryonic stem cell research.(Canada),” Nelson discuses the legal issues upon embryonic research as well as the ethical issues.  Smith highlights the moral question of  is the embryo a human being from the moment of fertilization, or is it “too rudimentary in… development to yet have interests and be the subject of moral duties.  This article is located in the Law Review, and has extensive research within it.  This may mean that this article is presented for people doing extensive research over the subject, and who are very interested in science which we can infer by the sophisticated biological terms.  Nelsons purpose is to inform the readers of the moral issues and to inform the readers this embryonic research does not only effect women but men as well.  I can use this in my paper because it has plenty of research and gives more to an alternate side of the argument.

Condic, Maureen L. ”Getting stem cells right.(Opinion).” First Things: A Monthly Journal of Religion and Public Life 180 (Feb 2008): 10(3). Expanded Academic ASAP. Gale. Texas Christian University. 11 Mar. 2009 

<http://find.galegroup.com/itx/start.do?prodId=EAIM>  In “Getting stem cells right,” Condic argues that research should be unrestricted by all means. Condic states it is not unethical to destroy the human stem lines that we already have to compare with our new and advanced upcoming research on creating stem cells without embryos.  This article is displayed in a general magazine because it is an opinionated piece.  This means it is targeting all audiences and Condic wants everyone to know the argument at hand.  Smith’s purpose is to inform the readers it is okay to destroy the human embryo’s we already have in order to save the upcoming research.  This is a good source to use in my paper, because while it is an opinion, it has many things in the paper I could research as well as providing a valid point that it should be okay to destroy the embryos we already have donated if it is useful to science and reaching the goal of creating stem cells without the use of embryos.