PDA

View Full Version : Stem cell research paper



JPHamlett
03-09-2010, 10:21 PM
heres my paper for my english class tell me what you think I would put it in code tags but it looks weird if you do


A nurse walks into a patients room to find to her surprise that the patient was gone. She checked with all the nursing staff and they all said that Mr. Winters had checked out. "That's weird" she said to herself "Mr Winters was a terminally ill cancer patient. Why would he check out?" She finished up her work day and headed home. On the way home she was shocked to find Mr Winters walking around like he was never sick at all. Innocent adults and children are suffering and dieing in our hospitals everyday. This tragedy can be avoided if stem cell research is less restricted. Stem cells should be used to improve life as we know it. Stem cells can be used to cure diseases, however some people say that we should not use stem cells because of its morality.
Research on human stem cells is a necessity to enhance the human life. Embryos are being thrown out and not begin used for research. Gary Pettett, a neonatologist at the Center for Practical Bioethics, stated, “If you were to leave … [a] fertilized blastocyst in the petri dish and provide it with nutrients and go away for a trip to the beach, you won't come back and find your son or daughter in the petri dish, it will reach a stage where it will simply die’” (Cemmit 6). In other words the unused embryos will just be discarded and not used to possibly find cures for diseases. Only one of the thousands of embryos are implanted in the uterus the other are thrown away (“Human Embryonic”, 2). AAAS’ Leshner says that approximately “400,000 unused IVF embryos” are discarded every year (Cemmit 7). We as people have a choice, throw out the embryos or use them to give people a chance to survive a traumatic disease. Furthermore we have a chance to advance in the field of science with guidelines (Cemmitt 6). Most people want to go beyond George W. Bush's "limit on stem cell research" ("Human Embryonic 1). If people want to go beyond his limits why don't we? Research on human embryos can enhance the human life dramatically.
Research on stem cells is controversial because of it morality. Human Embryos can not feel pain. At 14 days the nervous system begins to appear, before that there is no pain for the embryo. Also three days after fertilization the blastocyst isn't "even an embryo" ("Human Embryonic" 2) yet. A few of the cells will become the placenta which is discarded on birth. Third the blastocyst is not viewed at the same moral level as living humans. People don't grieve over miscarriages and other early terminated pregnancies. Which suggests that people view embryos as different from people(Cemmit 6). The other side of the argument states that possible treatment is causing people to forget about their morals(Cemmitt 6). People are so focused on getting to the cure for many diseases and stop the organ deficit that they forget that is a potential person their are dealing with.
In conclusion stem cells are valuable and need to be used to help people. The reasons being stem cells can enhance human life, but some people are arguing if stem cells should be used based on it morality. Scientists have come along way and are very close to making a huge break through in the scientific fields of stem cell research. The nurse went and talked to Mr winters and discovered that he was cured using stem cells.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Work Cited ( not done)


"Americans Favor Government Support of Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research." Resultsforamerica.org. 15 Feb 2005. 22 Feb 2010. Web.
Clemmitt, Marcia. " Stem Cell Research." L:ibrary.cqpress.com. The CQ Researcher Online. 1 Sept 2006. 22 Feb 2010. Web.
"Fetal Tissue Research Will Befit Medical Science." Geneletter.com. Feb 1999. 22 Feb 2010. Web.


Clemmitt, M. (2006, September 1). Stem cell research. CQ Researcher, 16, 697-720. Retrieved March 9, 2010, from CQ Researcher Online, http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/cqresrre2006090100.





Source Citation:

Civil Society Institute/Results for America. "Americans Favor Government Support of Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research." Opposing Viewpoints: Stem Cells. Ed. Jacqueline Langwith. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2007. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Eastview High School. 19 Feb. 2010 <http://find.galegroup.com/ovrc/infomark.do?&contentSet=GSRC&type=retrieve&tabID=T010&prodId=OVRC&docId=EJ3010453223&source=gale&srcprod=OVRC&userGroupName=mnkeviewhi&version=1.0>.







Wertz, Dorothy C. "Fetal Tissue Research Will Benefit Medical Science." Current Controversies: The Abortion Controversy. Ed. Lynette Knapp. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2001. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Eastview High School. 24 Feb. 2010 <http://find.galegroup.com/ovrc/infomark.do?&contentSet=GSRC&type=retrieve&tabID=T010&prodId=OVRC&docId=EJ3010034222&source=gale&userGroupName=mnkeviewhi&version=1.0>.

Bionicle
03-09-2010, 10:25 PM
Well written, you support your opinion very well. (I'm assuming this is an opinion piece, but if it is just for stating facts, it's very bias :p)
Also, i would put it in quote tags instead of code :p easier to read.

Brain
03-09-2010, 10:44 PM
weellllll, in the first sentence alone:

A nurse walks into a patient's room to find to her surprise that the patient was gone.

you change tense, the nurse walks into the room (present), and the patient WAS (past) gone, is he still gone?
also, patients should probably be possessive, with an apostrophe. (as I have it)

end of first paragraph: (first of all, you have 2 sentences starting with "Stem cells" in a row(mix it up))

should not use stem cells because of its morality. (the stem cells have morality? ambiguous antecedent here (who/what does "its" refer to?))

it'd be sweet if you could put a parenthetical definition of a "neonatologist" in there, since I've never heard of one before.

In other words, the unuse (comma, probably)

anted in the uterus, the others are thrown away (“Human Embryonic”, 2). (comma and plural)


and thats as far as I got, and those are only grammar errors

tarajunky
03-09-2010, 11:29 PM
What level class is this for?

Also, did you class provide those sources, or did you find them on your own?

Are you supposed to choose for/against, or is that assigned?

There are a few minor problems with some of your arguments. Like when you say there are 400,000 embryos discarded every year. Then "We as people have a choice, throw out the embryos or use them to give people a chance to survive a traumatic disease."

That's not actually true. We as people do not have that choice. The parents of those embryos have that choice. If they choose to throw them away, there's nothing you or I or anyone else can do about it. If you want to say that it's our choice as Americans, that means you must trample the rights of the parents to choose, and force them to donate their embryos to science.

Another issue is that there is already a large amount of private money being used for this type of research. California is spending 3 billion over 10 years, New York is spending a bit less than that. Bush didn't ban this research, he only prohibited public money from being spent on creating new lines. In fact, Bush was the first president to ever fund human embryonic stem cell research with public money.

New research has now identified a strategy where cells that can be taken from an adult and turned into embryonic stem cells. They call these cells iPS cells, and they essentially make human embryonic stem cells obsolete.

There is a lot of nuance to this issue. In the ethics of it, and in the funding of it, and in the potential of it, and in the relative worth of it compared to newer cell types.

People have this debate all the way up to the PhD level and beyond, so don't get too hung up on all these nuances if you are writing for a lower level class.

x[Warrior]x3500
03-09-2010, 11:50 PM
i enjoyed how you argued your point, but you had some MAJOR errors:

1. you argued that only embryonic stem cell research is out there - major error. you need to make sure you talk about how stem cell research != embryonic stem cell research.

2. you are using possible events as support. you are saying that by advancing embryonic stem cell research, we will find cures for more cancers. ... proof? and how can u prove that? you are talking about the future, which one can never prove.

3. you act as if stem cell research is exclusive to the USA. this obviously is incorrect.

4. to me at least, you paper seems sooooo 1 sided. it seems like you are close minded. now i am not saying you are, it just seems like it from this paper. I know this is supposed to be a persuasive paper, but you did not even acknowledge that there is such a thing as adult stem cell research. before you argue that embryonic stem cell research should have more rights, you need to first analyze the differences between all the types of stem cell research - their pros and cons; their histories; their restrictions set by the government. you need to know your topic, inside and out; and when you do, it will show in your paper.

now i am not trying to be mean in ANY way! please don't take my comments in a negative fashion. i just wanted to point out a few things that could help you write a better paper. once again, i enjoyed reading your paper, and i hope my comments help.

EDIT: idk why i am attaching this, but i worked on a ppr on this topic also. this is a rough draft (my first draft), but feel free to read it and get a little different take on the issue. it argues the exact opposite.

Brain
03-09-2010, 11:53 PM
this sounds like a structured high school paper, I'm guessing that the teacher (more or less) wants in this format, and that he had to choose a side to defend.

Dan Cardin
03-10-2010, 01:41 AM
New research has now identified a strategy where cells that can be taken from an adult and turned into embryonic stem cells. They call these cells iPS cells, and they essentially make human embryonic stem cells obsolete.

You are one of the first people that I've seen that knows that. Everyone else just assumes that there is only human embryonic stem cells. I don't particularly see the problem anymore. There is iPS, and there is a similar one that I don't know the name to. Neither of which are unethical and as far as I know neither of them are inferiority in any way that would make them less desirable. In fact they're easier to get and pretty much guarantee that your body won't reject them. From there I don't see how much of any argument would call them bad, so that really isn't much of a debate anymore (though I guess there are still people that aren't using them and therefor there would still be that problem for some people.)

Brain
03-10-2010, 02:06 AM
this isn't a discussion or debate....this is the HOMEWORK section, help him with HIS report.

Dan Cardin
03-10-2010, 11:48 AM
Thats not help? Add the above to the paper in better words with research and he wins!

(Why oh why Brain! my love for you...)