Discussion Post: The Controversy of Human Stem Cells
As we learn about human biology starting on the cellular and molecular level it's important to learn about the cells that start it all. On the atomic and cellular levels all humans consist of the same elements, same genetic design, undergo the same cellular processes, and same physiological processes and features. One feature of human physiology we all have in common, that has also been seen as a hope for potentially curing the diseases that can hit anyone no matter gender, socioeconomic class, ethnicity, etc., are human stem cells. There are adult human stem cells and embryonic stem cells. Each as their pros and cons. Stem Cells, Hope or Hype. This article focuses on the ethical concerns of stem cells. There are two sources for these types of cells. 1. human embryos that are donated by consenting donors, 2. Somatic stem cells that are found in every organ.
Unlike adult stem cells, embryonic stem cells are said to grow better and have less chance of tissue rejection since they have not yet been recognized as a specific type of stem cell such as an organ or system specific stem cell. Some diseases like Parkinson's and injuries such as spinal cord injuries are currently being studied using embryonic stem cells with some success.
The question becomes:
i. Knowing the source of embryonic stem cells is it right to continue this research? Why or why not?
ii. What are the risks of seeking out unproven stem cell therapies? Why or why not?
iii. Should there be more active research to find alternatives for stem cells derived from embryos? Why or why not?
iv. Could stem cell therapy can become a viable and reliable treatment for numerous diseases and illness in the future? Why or why not?