Similarly, the organization also prohibits the introduction of any animal or human cells into a human blastocyst. Breeding of human-animal chimeras is also prohibited. Ananya Mandal is a doctor by profession, lecturer by vocation and a medical writer by passion.
For her, health communication is not just writing complicated reviews for professionals but making medical knowledge understandable and available to the general public as well. Mandal, Ananya. Stem Cell Controversy. We speak to Professor Bart Hoogenboom and Georgina Benn about current research using technology to create the sharpest images of living bacteria ever recorded.
AZoLifeSciences interviews Dr. Chiara De Gregorio about searching for musical rhythms in primates and finding their answer in the Madagascan rainforest.
In this interview, we speak to Roy Smythe, CEO of SomaLogic, about their groundbreaking proteomics technology that can simultaneously measure 7, proteins. Accept Cookie Settings. By Dr. Related Stories How do large proteins and drugs cross a cell membrane?
Experts explain left—right asymmetry development in the embryo Cell communication determines the specialization of individual cells during development, study shows. Sources www. Written by Dr. Ananya Mandal Dr. Download PDF Copy. Citations Please use one of the following formats to cite this article in your essay, paper or report: APA Mandal, Ananya.
MLA Mandal, Ananya. Chicago Mandal, Ananya. Harvard Mandal, Ananya. Suggested Reading. Researchers employ hepatic organoids for disease modeling. Embryonic stem cell research has developed into an ethical debate concerning the creation, treatment, and destruction of human embryos. For example, under the Christian faith, Catholics share a moral objection, rooted in the belief that the fertilized egg is a representation of potential human life.
Catholics, many of whom are pro-life, disprove of stem cell research because they are concerned with the rights and status of the embryo as an early aged human life form. They believe harvested embryonic stem cells are human beings and extracting these cells and destroying the embryo constitutes murder Vestal. The way in which Catholics view embryonic stem cell research is similar to the way in which they view abortion; in both cases, Catholics believe in the preservation of human life and that human life begins at conception.
The idea of stem cell research points to concerns about when human life begins. Catholics believe it begins at conception, yet other religious groups believe otherwise and therefore favor stem cell research. Stem cell research has developed into a controversial debate amongst other monotheistic and polytheistic religions, some of which even support embryonic stem cell research.
Under the Christian faith, the Episcopal Church, for example, has declared itself in favor of stem cell research as long as the embryos used would have been destroyed otherwise The Pew Forum. Although both Catholicism and these faiths worship Christ, they do not agree on the ethical viewpoints regarding embryonic stem cell research. Followers of other monotheistic religions, such as Islam, have no explicit ruling on this issue and they tend to have mixed viewpoints.
Some individuals of the Islamic faith believe embryos do not have souls while others believe the termination of an embryo is morally impermissible The Pew Forum. Furthermore, Judaism supports embryonic stem cell research as long as it is used for medical purposes.
Buddhists, however, refer to two teachings: the prohibition against harming others and the pursuit of knowledge. Therefore, some believers argue that stem cell research is in accordance to a request for knowledge, while other states that it violates the notion of harming others The Pew Forum. Different religion groups uphold their own unique beliefs on stem cell research, allowing an individual to develop his or her own personal perspective concerning the subject.
However, it is also important to note that perhaps stem cells do not have to be taken from human embryos. Tadeusz Pacholczyk, a priest of the diocese of Fall River, Massachusetts and a PhD graduate with a neuroscience degree from Yale, discusses the science and ethics of stem cell research, providing evidence for a solution.
He argues the idea that stem cells can be extracted from fetuses, umbilical cords, placentas, bone marrow, and even cadavers. In other words, there are ways to use stem cells without extracting them from a human embryo.
He states that thousands of patients have been cured of their respective diseases with the use of umbilical cord stem cells, for example. These particular cases show evidence that embryonic stem cells do not necessarily have to be used.
The belief that embryonic stem cells are the most promising is quite plausibly a myth. Showing that a blastocyst is a human being, or a person, requires further argument. Some try to base such an argument on the fact that human beings develop from embryo to fetus to child.
Every person was once an embryo, the argument goes, and there is no clear, non-arbitrary line between conception and adulthood that can tell us when personhood begins.
Given the lack of such a line, we should regard the blastocyst as a person, as morally equivalent to a fully developed human being. SCL : What is the flaw in this argument? MS : Consider an analogy: although every oak tree was once an acorn, it does not follow that acorns are oak trees, or that I should treat the loss of an acorn eaten by a squirrel in my front yard as the same kind of loss as the death of an oak tree felled by a storm.
Despite their developmental continuity, acorns and oak trees differ. So do human embryos and human beings, and in the same way. Just as acorns are potential oaks, human embryos are potential human beings.
The distinction between a potential person and an actual one makes a moral difference. Sentient creatures make claims on us that nonsentient ones do not; beings capable of experience and consciousness make higher claims still.
Human life develops by degrees. SCL : Yet there are people who disagree that life develops by degrees, and believe that a blastocyst is a person and, therefore, morally equivalent to a fully developed human being. MS : Certainly some people hold this belief. But a reason to be skeptical of the notion that blastocysts are persons is to notice that many who invoke it do not embrace its full implications. President Bush is a case in point. In , he announced a policy that restricted federal funding to already existing stem cell lines, so that no taxpayer funds would encourage or support the destruction of embryos.
MS : If harvesting stem cells from a blastocyst were truly on a par with harvesting organs from a baby, then the morally responsible policy would be to ban it, not merely deny it federal funding. If some doctors made a practice of killing children to get organs for transplantation, no one would take the position that the infanticide should be ineligible for federal funding but allowed to continue in the private sector. In fact, if we were persuaded that embryonic stem cell research were tantamount to infanticide, we would not only ban it but treat it as a grisly form of murder and subject scientists who performed it to criminal punishment.
MS : Perhaps. But this does not explain why, if the president really considers embryos to be human beings, he has not at least called for such a ban, nor even called upon scientists to stop doing stem cell research that involves the destruction of embryos. When the comment drew a flurry of critical press attention, the White House retreated. No, the president did not believe that destroying an embryo was murder. If embryonic stem cell research does constitute the deliberate taking of innocent human life, it is hard to see how it differs from murder.
0コメント