Abstract the use of human embryos for research on embryonic stem (es) cells is currently high on the ethical and political agenda in many countries despite t. Those who are opposed to this research also believe that their tax dollars should not go to supporting the research regardless of whether or not the research is permitted the case for stem cell research most critics of the embryo research ban contend that week-old blastocysts are not human beings, and. To obtain embryonic stem cells, the early embryo has to be destroyed this means destroying a potential human life but embryonic stem cell research could lead to the discovery of new medical treatments that would alleviate the suffering of many people so which moral principle should have the upper hand in this situation. A heated moral debate ensued about whether the use of embryonic cell lines in research should be allowed or banned this very public debate culminated with president bush limiting federal funding of embryonic stem cell research to cells that had already been derived at the time of his announcement, on august 9, 2001. Learn about stem cell research and how it may impact human health they argue that the embryo should have the same rights as every other human and that these rights should be protected this allowed the national institutes of health (nih) to begin funding research that uses embryonic stem cells.
One of the central questions in the current stem cell debate is whether human embryonic stem cell research (escr) should be allowed, and, if so, under what constraints discussions about the regulation of escr are a stumbling block in developing stem cell policy on the one hand there is a growing consensus that of all. The reprogrammed cells—“induced pluripotent stem cells” (ipscs)—could ultimately eliminate the need for hescs however, at present, the consensus in the scientific community is that both hesc and ipsc research should be pursued , as we do not yet know whether ipscs have the same potential as. The bush administrationagrees with conservatives that embryo destruction is wrong and thus should not be federally funded it also agrees that the federal government should not fund research on new embryonic stem cells harvested and donated by others the bush administration has banned federal.
Bac recommends that research on human embryonic stem cells should be allowed only where there is strong scientific merit in, and potential medical benefit from, such research in these instances, the committee says, the use of existing embryonic cell lines derived from embryos fewer than 14 days old. Opponents argue that the research is unethical, because deriving the stem cells destroys the blastocyst, an unimplanted human embryo at the sixth to eighth day of 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 our view, forcing us taxpayers to subsidize research that relies on deliberate destruction of human embryos for their stem cells is illegal, immoral and couples who would otherwise have allowed their embryonic children to live -- in their own family or another -- will instead have them killed for government research. Great levels of success and potential have been realized from research using adult stem cells in early 2009, the fda approved the first human clinical trials using embryonic stem cells only cells from an embryo at the morula stage or earlier are truly totipotent, meaning that they are able to form all cell types including. The debate over embryonic stem cell research should consider a diversity of ethical and policy issues many of the ethical and policy issues that stem if stem cell research produces expensive treatments, how many people will be able to benefit from the research investment even more dramatic social justice questions.