CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Embryonic stem cell research is controversial because, with current technology, it's necessary to destroy a human embryo in order to harvest stem cells.
In humans, an embryo is the very first stage of life -- from the moment an egg is fertilized until the end of the 8th week.
In my view there is nothing wrong with destroying an embryo because it is not yet a human being. An embryo feels no pain and has no consciousness -- it can neither think nor feel. For all practical purposes an embryo is just a clump of dirt out of which life can spring.
Opposition to the destruction of embryos stems from the incorrect assumption that an embryo has been infused with a "soul" -- that it has been "touched by God" -- and therefore destroying it is a kind of blasphemy. This line of thought is flawed because there is no reason to believe that God exists. And even if we were to assume that God exists, there's no reason to assume he has a plan for each individual person, let alone each individual embryo.
"Embryonic stem cell research is controversial because, with current technology, it's necessary to destroy a human embryo in order to harvest stem cells."
That is a completely false statement! That is why there are so many people against stem cell research, there are people spreading these rumors such as the above comment, about what us scientists do in the lab!
The following link is how a portion of human adipose tissue, aka fat, can be collected from a healthy, alive human donor and stem cells can be harvested from the tissue for various research purposes. There are countless other examples, such as from the umbilical cord, where there is no need to destroy a human embryo first.
"...with the present state of technology, the creation of a human embryonic stem cell line requires the destruction of a human embryo."
Are you sure the stem cells you're referring to are embryonic stem cells? I'm not a biologist, but my understanding is that embryonic stem cells are much more useful for research purposes than other types of stem cells.
Well, as a PhD researcher at Johns Hopkins, albeit with my personal laboratory focus in cancer and not in human stem cell work, there is great interest right now in how adult stem cells can lead to either maintaining an organ in its healthy state or how these stem cells in an organ can lead to cancer. This makes the issue of adult stem cells actually more important to human health than the stem cells we all had as embryos and this is where the "hot" research is actually being done now.
So yes, you are correct in saying that for pluripotent embryonic stem cells an embryo is needed, but the debate did not state which stem cell line was the focus, and as a scientist, I wanted to draw attention to the fact that there are other types of stem cells which really can completely avoid the ethical issues some have with embryonic stem cell work.
Here is a great site from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) on stem cells, a much better source than wikipedia for scientific information! ;)
You are partially right... some one who is not an educated scientist is dictating what is best to be done in the lab... but I am sharing non-published results from the #1 research hospital in the world when I share with you what it hot right now! =)
what most people do not realise is that stem cell research has been proven to help. embryonic stem cell research on the other hand has not given any results that prove it helps. frankly, some tests show that embryonic stem cells cause pre cancerous side effects. those who are polled are normal people who, like most of us, are uneducated and say what they hear, meaning that most of them don't realize that embryonic stem cell research is a waste of there tax money! i support stem cell research (as the title say is f*ing saves lives) but embryonic has not proven to help.
"embryonic stem cell research on the other hand has not given any results that prove it helps."
Wrong.
First, embryonic stem cells are the same thing as adult stem cells, only better. Embryonic stem cells are pluripotent, meaning they can become any kind of cell. Adult stem cells are less flexible.
Second, here are a bunch of stem cell studies that have been highlighted by the NIH. Notice how every single one of them either utilizes embryonic stem cells or is about ways that adult stem cells may be rigged to behave like embryonic stem cells.
"frankly, some tests show that embryonic stem cells cause pre cancerous side effects."
"First, embryonic stem cells are the same thing as adult stem cells, only better." FALSE! I am sorry, but you cannot make such a blanket statement, especially since you are not a researcher or professional in this field. Heck, I am even not one and I sit through hours of lectures on this topic a week! From the very NIH site I referenced earlier and you referenced above:
- "Scientists primarily work with two kinds of stem cells from animals and humans: embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells, which have different functions and characteristics..."
The following link has a whole list a the differences between the 2 stem cell types, and how adult stem cells have advantages over embryonic stem cells! It really depends on the research and purpose to decide which line is "better."
"I am sorry, but you cannot make such a blanket statement, especially since you are not a researcher or professional in this field."
Yes I can. I state the truth as best I can with my limited understanding and count on others (such as yourself) to correct me when I'm wrong. That's the beauty of this site.
Now then, from the link you posted, I gather that adult stem cells have the singular, hypothetical advantage of being from your own body and thus will definitely not be rejected by your immune system. However it should be noted that the last sentence on the page states, "whether the recipient would reject donor embryonic stem cells has not been determined in human experiments."
Also, I note that the page identifies an additional advantage of embryonic cells is that large numbers of them can be "relatively easily grown in a culture" whereas adult stem cells are hard to come by. This is important because "large numbers of cells are needed for stem cell replacement therapies."
There are 3 different types of stem cells; embryonic, adult and induced pluripotent stem cells. All originally come from humans.
1. Adult stem cells (ASC) [are often referred to as REPAIR stem cells because they are the body's natural healing cells ] have been used in bone marrow transplants for 40 years. They can currently treat 130+ diseases. They produce virtually zero side effects. The are originally derived from many locations in the human body including blood, umbilical cords, bone marrow, fat, nose, breast milk, menstruation, placenta and many other places. There are about 1,300 clinical trials that prove the safety and efficacy of adult stem cells.
2. Embryonic stem cells (ESC) can currently treat zero diseases. They are associated with a lot of problems (tumors, rejection, controversy, etc). They are originally derived from embryos. There are no completed embryonic clinical trials.
3. Induced pluripotent stem cells (IPsc) are fairly new. They have many of the same problems as embryonic (cysts, tumors, rejection…). They come from regular adult cells like skin cells that are then transformed (regressed to an embryonic state) by scientists into stem cells.
I respect your view point and really appreciate the fact that you acknowledge the difference between different types of stem cell research! I, and other scientists, have been struggling to get this very point across! You have every right to your values and beliefs.
Thank you ! I just think there's a reason that we cant decide the way our children are born and what diseases they may or may not carry, so i don't think scientist should try.
And this may sound really messed up, but if your parents didn't have a choice about how you turned out, why should you have the choice about your own kids ?
But there are lots of things my parents did not have the choices about when raising me, yet I will have those choices to make for my kids. For example, what age to get my child a cell phone... when I was growing up they were not prevalent, yet, now a days I see young kids with them! This cell phone usage is an example of how we evolve with modern technology, why is this, curing/preventing a disease with the findings of stem cell research not the same?
Well, I must let you know that i am highly religious. And while you make a good point, I just don't believe humans have the right to interfere with God's doing.
Sorry to bring in religion into a scientific matter, but my beliefs root from my faith and all...
I don't think that it is ignorance so much as a lack of understanding what it is. "We humans fear that which we cannot comprehend." That quote is so true in so many ways. People aren't ignorant, just uninformed. Because I'm sure that they are educated and know something about what goes on in hospitals, so they aren't so much ignorant, as they are unable to comprehend the true benefit stem cell research provides to humanity.
Well, technically the definition of ignorance is a "lack of knowledge, education, or awareness" so the basis of your whole argument of "I don't think that it is ignorance so much as a lack of understanding what it is...so they aren't so much ignorant, as they are unable to comprehend..." Is completely false.
Nothing really, I mean, some people are against embryonic stem cell research because of their beliefs, and I respect that, but I don't think that they should be dictating the well-being of many in our society just because of the beliefs of a relatively small group of people. I say we have a nationwide vote on it :P.
I do believe it is wrong for the government to prop up any form of research especially one that has claims of grandeur but very little results. If it was so great then the private sector would be all over it. Even if I don't like it it is not illegal or anything. The government not paying for it is most of your problems.
Scientific research takes a LONG time, trust me, I know from personal experience. If you want large, influential advances we have to take risks and research the unknown. If only research studies with anticipated and known results are funded what is the point? Nothing new will be learned! We have been fighting/researching AIDS and cancer for decades, should we give up funding those studies because there is no cure yet? Hell no! Plus, the motivation of the private sector and academia (government funded labs) is completely different.
