Stemming of the Stem Cell
For the very first time in his presidency, President George W Bush made a historical veto last July 19th murdering the hopes of additional advancement from the stem cell technology. The terminated bill has been aimed at lifting the ban on federal financing of embryonic stem cell research which President Bush himself imposed in 2001.

The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act has been voted by both the Senate and the House of Representatives, but both chambers dropped short of the two thirds vote that could have overturned Bush's veto power. With a debate on grounds of societal morals, the veto in the president was already been expected. Bush has always been vocal in his stand against embryonic stem cell research as well as the technology which uses human embryos in trying to create miracle cures for terminal diseases.

With the veto, President Bush gained a wider support ground among the conservative Republicans and the numerous progressive religious and conservative advocacy groups. Disappointment and frustrations, on the other hand, escalated among the seculars and liberals.

The issue has been residing in the highest offices of this country but most common Americans are still unaware on what's the real deal about stem cell. The only thing the government and other concerned parties are sending to the social base is the possibility of stem cell to heal terminal diseases. Not enough understanding how stem cell might attain this possible and its own political, social, and spiritual underpinnings has been made available to the huge public which in the close of the day is at the end of any legislation.

At a really lengthy conversation I had with a cousin who teaches Biology, I came to realize stem cells are cells of the body which are in their very early stage of development and aren't yet designed to perform very specific roles. Unlike brain tissues that cannot replace the functions of the heart cells, stem cells can be developed and assigned to perform anything purpose. This characteristic is apparently what is seen by specialists to be million-years missing link to solving acute body and organ malfunctions.

Researchers and scientists state that by focusing on the unspecialized nature of stem cells, demonstrating mechanisms could be done to transform these stem cells into a particular type of cell to be used to replace damaged tissues of an organ. This assumption promises stem cells to be the fix kits especially to ailments that are currently hard to resolve such as heart diseases, diabetes, and spinal column damages, Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease. On a scholastic note, stem cell technologies advocates argue that by exploring the many possibilities of stem cells, humanity will attain a greater understanding on how diseases develop in the cell and tissue level.

It sounds perfectly fine and enormously beneficial, so what is the fuss all about? As I had been (objectively I trust) told, the controversy is rooted from the fact that the most workable stem cells are from the tissues of an embryo. Applied in human circumstance, it is the human embryo-- that the beginning of life, something we humans can't change or infringe on (as societal and moral constructs educated us).

And when ethics and morals are at the film, politics cannot be missing. Given the several investigations, view points, and resistance coming from organized religions and classes, governments of countries where stem cell research are existing are placed in an extremely stressful tipping point. With pragmatic, revolutionary promises colliding with instituted social beliefs and moral convictions, governments are in the mercy of exclusive polars. A solid support base is the thing that keeps a government alive (and a president favorite). If majority of the folks are secular, damaging their beliefs will not perform a government any good. But what about the national interest in progress and progress? And so the discussion ensues.

Far more problems arise in stem cell. Should further studies be chased and developed into technologies? Should currently approved stem cell processes be widened? Should we be filled with adult stem cells or liver more about embryos? Should stem cell research and technology be financed by the state? Where can we draw the line between morals and restraint?

To constructively engage in the issue, I argue in favor of the stem cell assistants. The religious opposition some sectors have is not something new to be so upset about. They had exactly the exact same stance about divorce, about euthanasia, and even about warfare. Yes, their resistance is a essential element given that we are (ideally) in democratic society where multi standpoint political stands are distinguished. However, their resistance must not in any way be the turning point of the fate of any endeavor to advance human knowledge, particularly if they (the anti-stem cell bands) or their loved ones may benefit out of it. Issues such as the fraud and embezzlement of South Korea's Hwang Woo-suk are valid and worth the scrutiny it deserves. But essentially, the incident isn't in any manner reminiscent of the follies of stem cell technology.


Continue Reading Here More about stem cell research


Visit : https://www.tebu-bio.com/blog/2017/04/21/pluripotent-stem-cells-and-ipsc-research-quality-and-innovative-products-to-boost-your-project/