why has stem cell been the subject of such intense debate in the world?
84718
Bush has banned it because they get stem cells from aborted fetuses. However, there will always be abortion, legal or illegal. Why not use the cells.
729317
Why would it suddenly become an issue?  Stem cell research, perhaps, but AI, I think not.
711160
A stem cell is a basic cell that hasn't quite decided what to become yet.  It is like a cell on standby waiting for orders from the body.  Once the cell gets orders, it goes where it is needed and becomes whatever type of cell the body needs.\n\nWhen a fetus is developing, stem cells become whatever the infant needs based on the DNA code that the mother and father provide.  They become the bones, organs, muscles, brain, hair, etc.  Later in life, stem cells work to repair damage to the body such as bone breaks, cuts, torn ligaments, etc.  This does not mean that aborted fetuses are the primary source of stem cells; it's just one of the most visible ways of seeing how stem cells are used.\n\nMost of the advancements in stem cell research are actually being done with bone-marrow or umbilical cords.  By getting stem cells from adults or umbilical cords, no infants or fetuses need to be harmed.\n\nThe applications of the research are vast.  Scientist hope to be able to repair damaged nerves to cure blindness, deafness and crippling injuries.  There are also ways of using stem cells to stunt the growth of cancers or repair damage to organs.\n\nI hope that was elementary enough.  Stem cell research is really not as bad as everyone makes it seem.  Think about it--if we can cure breast cancer without harming a single child (born or unborn), isn't it worth considering?
693540
Embryonic stem cell research is unquestionably wrong because it involves the destruction of a human baby.  There are other sources of stem cells such as placental cord blood, adult stem cells, etc. that are right and good research which promises to produce many good therapeutic procedures and products.  Stick to that kind of stem cell research and many good things will come of it.  But, at all costs, avoid anything to do with embryonic stem cell research.
947970
I agree...I believe that in the proper hands, this could solve many health issues. As with everything else, even good things in the wrong hands, can get ugly...but that's not reason enough NOT to benefit society.\nI was asked many years ago to participate in a survey of 12 people in a room, ( including a man in a religious order) and we all gave pros and cons on why we thought they either should or shouldn't do stem cell research...Most of us concluded that it would be a benefit to society.
971448
I agree that stem cells hold the answers to many different diseases. I do not see anything wrong with using embryos.\nHere is the problem, not all groups can agree to this due to religious reasons. \nSome believe a child is a child at conception, others believe in the 2nd trimester. Its very complicated and unfortunate. I believe that the embryos that will not grow (there are many) should be used for research. That way maybe both groups will be ok.\nI also believe that people should not put other people down for their beliefs. I understand from both sides.
757631
Stem cells are cell in the humane body that have not yet been defined. meaning they have not developed to the point of of becoming an organized mass called tissue such as muscle tissue  or skin tissue or nerve tissue. This is important because researchers are investigating ways to coax stem cells into developing  into specific types of tissue  within the body  to aid in the cure of injuries and disease. For example if someones spinal cord was cut and you could get stem cells to develop into spinal cord tissue to repair the damage . this has actually been demonstrated in mice. now this is somewhat of an oversimplification but you get the idea.\n\nNow as stated by previous answers there are 2 types of stem cells Adult and Embryonic. The controversy is over the use of Embryonic stem cells. there are several ethical debates that arise from embryonic stem cells..\n1.Obviously by their nature they are derived from embryos or fertilized eggs. Now those believing that life begins at inception (such as myself) think that is destruction of viable life and object on these grounds.. Others say there are thousands of embryos created for in-vitro fertilization and many go unused and likely will never be implanted so why not get some good from them. To better illustrate my position let me paint a slightly different picture. Let say one person had a unique  immune system that created antibodies that would attack and destroy all types of cancer.. Obviously these cells would be useful to curing those afflicted. Now would it be ethical to pass a law requiring that individual to donate blood and tissue against his will so that thousands could be cured. Worse yet would it be ethical to require that individual to submit cells for cloning  so even more could be cured. this brings us to the second Issue\n2. The second way to to get embryonic stem cells is by cloning and harvesting the stem cells before the embryo develops into  a fetus. The moral and ethical implications here are obvious. you might call this the production line approach and the very idea is intolerable to many people.\n3. Lastly, Once use of embryonic stem cell is deemed acceptable would it be legal to sell ones eggs much like people sell plasma today.Currently there is no prohibition on the practice  and it would likely be used. Realizing that the female body produces a finite supply of eggs determined at birth the use of financial incentives to induce women likely poor woman to donate raises it's own ethical questions \n\nCurrently federal funding for embryonic stem cell research on new embryo's is banned. the government has made an exception for a few strains of cells that were developed prior to the funding ban. This ban is not on research but on federal funding the private sector as well as state funding wholly with state dollars is still legal\nAs far as Adult stem cell research goes there are no restrictions I know of\nSo there you have the debate in a nutshell as for yourself you have to decide on your own ethics. I have tried to give as unbiased a coverage as I can detailing the pertinent facts.
747471
Firstly the answer depends one whether you are referring to cloning on an individual cell basis or at the organism level (ie Dolly the sheep).\n\nThere are two main types of objection to the first type of cloning, those relating to pro-life arguments and those that are concerned with unethical manipulations of cells. \n\nThe pro-life debate argues that all cells are potential life, the decision of whether or not those cells are allowed to grow or are terminated lies with God, not a scientist. \n\nThe other argument argues that cloning may grow out of control and unethical experiments may be carried out. \n\nOn the organism level...\n\nWell human cloning finds itself facing similar arguments, pro-life is obviously going to find problems here as life is a privilege given only by God. \n\nFrom an ethical view its quite clear that complete human cloning is wrong, refer to the movie The Island!\n\nI think Christians object, not through fear as God will always be infinitely more powerful in their eyes, but purely because they believe the gift of life is precious and from their point of view cloning is a violation of that gift.\n \nPersonally I think the anti-cloning and stem cell research movements are damaging the potential of scientific and medical research.
105787
It is legal in all states... the controversy is over government funding of stem cell research.
730714
1)  EVERY advance gained from stem cell research has come through adult stem cells\n\n2)  ZERO advances have come through embryonic.\n\n3)  When ZERO advances come along, private funding for research dries up.  Who wants to throw money at a losing proposition?\n\n4)  Stem cell research is not illegal.\n\n5)  The push for stem cell research is a veiled move to push for public funding for FAILED avenues of research.\n\n"To date there is no evidence that cells generated from embryonic stem cells can be safely transplanted back into adult animals to restore the function of damaged or diseased adult tissues. The level of scientific rigor that is normally applied (indeed, legally required) in the development of potential medical treatments would have to be entirely ignored for experiments with human embryos to proceed. As our largely disappointing experience with gene therapy should remind us, many highly vaunted scientific techniques frequently fail to yield the promised results. Arbitrarily waiving the requirement for scientific evidence out of a naive faith in "promise" is neither good science nor a good use of public funds."
472005
You know, most people try to avoid controversial subjects. Something controversial is stem cell research, if you ask me.
819900
It is the wave of the future of human medicine. There are many web sites that support that concept. International Stem Cell Research - WEB site.
359710
It's not so much the acutal medical risks, but the ehtical and moral implications of conducting research in the field.\n\nThe following is an excerpt from a research paper I recently wrote concerning stem cell research:\n\nEmbryonic stem cell research raises immense ethical and religious concern:\nThe issue of research involving stem cells derived from human embryos is increasingly the subject of a national debate and dinner table discussions. The issue is confronted every day in laboratories as scientists ponder the ethical ramifications of their work. It is agonized over by parents and many couples as they try to have children or to save children already born. The issue is debated within the church, with people of different faiths- even many of the same faith- coming to different conclusions. Many people are finding the more they know about stem cell research, the less certain they are about the right ethical and moral conclusions. (“Bush Embryonic Stem Cell Decision” 1)\nQuite often, the status of an embryo is debated among scientists, politicians, theologians, philosophers, and even everyday people. There are many ideas circulating the globe as some vie to protect the embryo and others hope to use it to benefit society. Those that oppose stem cell research claim that the methods scientists use are not morally justifiable. Human embryos, in their minds, are “not mere biological tissues or clusters of cells; they are the tiniest of human beings” (Espejo 49). According to the Human Embryo Research Panel and the National Bioethics Commission, the embryo should be considered a living organism from its earliest stages (Espejo 46-50). People therefore claim that scientists are alienating the rights of living human beings by performing experiments on embryos: \nThe painful lessons of the past should have taught us that human beings must not be conscripted for research without their permission- no matter what the alleged justification- especially when that research means the forfeiture of their health or lives. Even if an individual’s death is believed to be otherwise imminent, we still do not have a license to engage in lethal experimentation- just as we may not experiment on death row prisoners or harvest their organs without their consent. (Espejo 49)\nThe widespread Christian view that life begins at the moment of conception has caused many to believe that the destruction of the human embryo is murder (Espejo 4). People also believe that is irrelevant whether the embryos are capable of implanting in a uterus and developing, as they are embryos nonetheless (Morris 2). As Morris questions, “are we willing to recognize life, even if it’s living in a Petri dish?” (2). Those that sympathize with these concerns feel that research requiring the destruction of a human embryo should be banned. Others argue that since IVF procedures often generate more embryos than needed, the excess embryos should be used for potentially life-saving research rather than being discarded (Espejo 36-37). Also, they claim embryos do not have the same rights as adult humans. The suggestion that a mass of 50-100 cells with no heart and no brain is entitled to the same protections is “unprecedented and not embodied in American law” (Espejo 38). With this in mind, it seems that embryonic stem cell research should not be undermined by the aforementioned arguments. There are additional concerns however. The use of SCNT is often criticized by those opposed to cloning, as a majority of people view cloning as morally wrong.  SCNT has been used in reproductive cloning, such as the cloning of Dolly the sheep. In the public’s mind, the distinction between this form of cloning and therapeutic cloning, which involves SCNT used for medical purposes, has blurred. The two should not be confused however, as they are completely separate procedures. Outlawing the use of SCNT would prevent the development of very promising techniques for curing disease
425446
The best source of stem cells is abortion.  That is starting to change, though--they are finding other good sources.
709278
i read the other posts and its strange but they totally disregard the facts !  nasal stem cells are compatible with all organs and usages, that what the newest paper released in the stem cell research fields says anyway, and the leading scientist said that embryonic was  not the only way that in the field it was the most convenient.  several of the ppl who responded just totally blew off the facts and said the nasal stem cells were for only a limited use and others supported the embryonic only because thats what they think works...neither view base on the facts. personally i think some ppl just don't want to know the truth. stem cell research is changing daily and for the person who said there is no funding they certainly don't know anything about it because millions was given last year alone in govt. grants, private companies and personal donations to this research. for once i'd like to see someone tell the truth with out bending it to fit their agenda. thanks for just pointing out the facts without being biased, i wish more ppl would do that.
73516
What bothers me more is that so many are pushing for Fetal Stem Cells, and not Umbilical Stem Cells.\n\nUmbilical Stem Cells are benificial, and do not carry any of the stigma of the Fetal Stem Cells.  And at this time, they are simply thrown away.\n\nI would like to see more research on Umbilical Stem Cells.  Once the techniques are perfected, then Fetal ones can be looked at for the problems that Umbilical Stem Cells can not cure.
161491
stem cell research\nalot is in the paper and online news