Commentary on Stem cell research

In the current millennium, with so many advancements in science, we should not hinder the progress of stem cell researching. How you ever wondered whether there is a cure to various life-threatening diseases? Have ever wondered if that would be the medicine of the future? However, good things definitely have a bad side to it too. Stem cell research is definitely useful, but is there a different side that has not been published? In this essay, I will try to put up an argument showing the pros and cons of stem cell researching.

Stem cells should definitely be continued. Even the president of the united states of America, Barack Obama, agrees with me when he decided to revise Bush’s policy of completing shutting down of stem cell research in the united states. The new law would restore the US federal grants to scientists and research laboratories. This esoteric niche of scientific inquiry is geared towards the betterment of the human condition that to hold back its progress is just ungodly. Could you imagine how much poorer the store for human knowledge would be if searching minds such as Coppernicus and Charles Darwin had had their pioneering question curtailed by religious edict, just because it contradicted the religious dogma of the day. We must realise that the banning of stem cell research would be exactly the same. Stem cells have saved many people from life-threatening problems. For example, adult stem cells are already being used to save people from lung problems and are used in skin grafting . Newly approved drugs are being used to simulate the adult bone marrow to produce many blood-making stem cells and has successful cured a patient with lymphoma. It can also be used to restore blood flow to heart or brain after heart attacks or strokes. All this were only possible when stem cell research was continued. This proved that stem cell research have helped people and brought happiness to many people. Stem cell research should definitely be continued.

However, many people argue that stem cell research have brought more harm than help to human beings. For example, there are many risks entailing to the process of the research. The surgical extraction of the ova is a very good example. Supernormal of dangerous hormones must be used over many cycles to flog the woman’s ovaries to produce more ovaries than normal. This would cause it to cause more harm than it were to help. Another danger would be the cancer stem cells. Both them and good stem cells are very hard to differentiate. Sometimes, cancer cells could be injected into patients along with good ones. This would also cause more harm than to help.

But this is not true. Because of the increase if risks in the surgical extraction of the ova, scientists are currently developing banks of embryonic stem cells differentiated by tissue markers. Thus, this would decrease the risk in this operation and make stem cell research a definite must-do. In the second counter-point, I have to agree that it was very hard to differentiate from the two. But that was only in the past. Now, scientists are able to differentiate them and kill the remaining cancerous stem cells and thus making it to cause more help than harm.

In conclusion, I would like to reinstate the point that stem cell research should be continued as the pros outweigh the cons. It brings more help than harm. If it were to be banned, could you imagine parents of of children that are down because of a very serious sickness and someone out there is preventing them a possible cure? That would be wrong.