No alternative stem cells have matched the potential achievements that embryonic stem cells anticipate to accomplish. Adult stem cells lack the ability to form the full range of types of cells. Reprogrammed cells still remain at an infancy state and may leave behind genes that could trigger cancer. Only embryonic stem cells possess the unique characteristic of full differentiability. This trait allows them to discover possible cure for diseases through developing human organs, advancing drug testing and investigating organ development. All of these potentials will lead into a tremendously beneficial revolution in human medical industry, too valuable to be constrained by its opponents' elusive ethical objections. An article titled “Alternative Energy For Embryonic Stem Cell Research”, however, demonstrates clear oppositions to embryo-derived stem cells. The author argues that despite the to-be-proven benefits that the embryonic stem cell research might have, the ethical concerns regarding the destruction of human souls will outweigh the potentials, and therefore, it is necessary to seek for alternative researches that do not cause such moral concerns. I immediately disagree.
The author overstates the ethic concerns and his logic is naive. He states that human embryonic stem cell research violates the “dignity and inviolability of human life” because it destroys human embryos which, he believes, have souls. The existence of soul itself carries a very controversial assumption. Science should not compromise to such an elusive ideology. Looking back into human history, many of the most respected and praised findings have once been in the position of today’s embryonic stem cell research. In facing those controversies and challenges, our science pioneers did not compromise. Their dedication and responsibility towards science, and their unyielding desire to advance the world have kept them pursing new coals. Had they conceded, the world would have been a different place. Morever, the author is unaware of the various sources of embryonic stem cells. The majority of embryonic stem cells used in the research comes from discarded embryos. There are around 400,000 discarded human embryos stored in the freezers of the fertilization clinics. Those embryos no longer possess the ability to naturally grow to human; it would be unethical not to study them to cure people’s diseases. Embryonic stem cells can also be deviated from aborted embryos. Since abortions are legal in many countries, making full use of these embryos seems mature and rational. However, discarded embryos are smaller than naturally embryo-derived cells and “they have no identifying features or hints of a nervous system”. Therefore, opening new embryonic stem cells lines is still necessary. The author also argues scientists should stop embryonic research because they are not 100 percent certain it will yield any great results. This reasoning is weak. Seeking for the answers to the uncertainty is the exact purpose of scientific research. Newton was not sure about the existence of the gravitational force before getting hit by the apple. He researched into it and finally proved it. Thomas Edison was not certain which type of filament to use in a light bulb. He tried 1000 times and finally discovered.
Advantages of embryonic stem cells themselves could also outweigh the absurd ethic claims. These stem cells are crucial to develop organisms because they have the potential to create all other specific cells in human body, such as blood, brain and tissue cells. Scientists can use these stem cells to generate healthy organs in the laboratory and transplant into patients to replace the damaged ones. The stem-cell-developed organs have two major advantages over the traditional donated organs. First, it is able to produce at a large scale. Second, the organs could be “exact DNA matches which would make the transplant process more efficient” and help reduce the rejection of transplantation; this has been proved successful in animals. One study shows that the stem-cell derived heart cells, which have been injected into mice and pigs with heart disease, demonstrate incredible results as they quickly filled in for the damaged cells and sped recovery. It is believed that embryonic stem cells have the same developmental potentials in humans as their counterparts in animal bodies. Thus, if we eventually use them in humans, we will have the opportunities to save thousands of patients. Reprogrammed stem cells, which the author suggests, could indeed grow to human organs; however, it would leave behind genes that develop into cancer cells, which disable it for human transplantation. In addition, embryonic stem cells can be used in drug testing. Scientists can observe real responses and reactions of the stem-cell grown organs and tissues to the new drugs. The results will be more accurate than animal testing. Furthermore, because the embryonic stem cell is the most fundamental form of stem cell, it can play a significant role in investigating the development of early human embryos, through which scientists hope to answer questions about the origins of the diseases due to developmental abnormalities, such as cancer. Other cells, such as adult stem cells, lack the developmental ability for such studies.
The author does make a valid suggestion: to conduct researches of other types of stem cells as well. Because state funded embryonic stem cell research of large scale is yet to be permitted and new embryonic research lines are still not legalized in many countries, it is essential to explore other types of stem cells. But let’s be clear. Embryonic stem cells are superior to other stem cells. Therefore, the alternative researches should only be performed in conjunction with the embryonic stem cell research. The main purpose is to explore various types of stem cells, advance the technology and speed up the progress of cell biology, as opposed to finding substitutes for embryonic stem cells due to its ethic concerns.
Out life is composed of all types of tradeoffs. Sometimes we will have to focus on the greater picture and do what would maximize the benefits. Would being ethical help cure the diseases that are making millions of millions of people suffer? No! Would it create various and sufficient organs for those who need them? No! Then, here is a question you should consider: do you want to be ethically right or would you rather challenge the conservative ideology and save real people? You don’t have to make a decision now. But if you chose to support a potential life-saving science research over some elusive ethics nonsense, you should not feel guilty! In fact, with the compelling evidence, it is my deepest belief that the research of embryonic stem cells will soon be recognized as a milestone in medical history and it definitely needs to keep advancing with full speed.
No comments:
Post a Comment