
Aren't Cartoons really effective in telling you loads about a Topic? Stem Cell Research is a hot, controversial topic that is highly debateable by professionals and Scientists around the world. It all boils down to 1 key factor, is the embryo considered a living thing?
Dear Reader, please stop to ponder over this. That little cell, does it have a mind of its own? It has no heart, no organ and no way of defending itself - is it or is it not a living thing?

How did your organs come about? By Magic? Nah, far from that, stem cells are like little factories and slowly, the start specialising into becoming unique parts of the human bodies. If Man is able to manipulate it, things such as Parkinsons and Cancer can be cured since you could use the stem cell to replace any damaged organ in the long run. Did that stun you? Was it an Eye Opener? That being said, it is still a fact that Man hasn't been able to fully understand these minute cells and as such, continuous research is the only way to develop our understanding of it.
The point of controversy is, when is the Stem Cell considered a living thing? It is after all an embryo, the prelude to a baby! There are several biological markers which only occur after the fourteenth day which by then, the embryo would have been destroyed by the extraction of the stem cells. As such, no form of life would take place after the research has been complted since the cells would most likely have been harmed or even destroyed after being exposed to certain chemicals or machines.

It is justifiable to say that this is just a smokescreen hiding many from seeing the big picture since being able to control stem cells would benefit an even larger pool of people. Man would have a whole new perspective and paradigm when coming across this topic and human reproduction might seem like a whole new Vending Machine. We can create Raw Material - "For the cells! Not the Baby!"
I feel that something this controversial shouldnt have concrete times as to when and where research should stop but should however be circumstantial. Cells and Babies shouldnt be deemed material less Mothers would be no different from Factories.
Medical progress is important for the world, but moral ethics also play a part. Though the cells might not have any feelings whatsoever, we must take into account that they will become living creatures later on. As such, there is a grey area. Should we sacrifice a few for the sake of millions around the world? My answer would be a resounding yes, though it would be tragic that a few would have to exterminated in the research project. As such, the government could portion of a few cells each time from donors who donate their cells. Of course, monetary rewards should not be given as people might try to take advantage of the government. We will see in due course how many around the world are kind enough to help others in the world. The benefits of being able to utilize stem cells are plenty.
For now, we will stick to the fourteen day rule. That would be equivalent to two weeks and only time will tell what Scientists can discover! Onwards, for the greater good for Mankind!
So tell me, reader, are you a Republican or are you a Democrat. Would you fight for the greater good and forego a few or will you keep everyone safe?
Hi, Revolutionaryfox here,or Samuel from 2I3. Matthew's take on the ethics of stem cell research is detailed and shows strong signs of metacognition at work. He also used some creative forms of figurative language like the vending machine. It is thought-provoking and rhetoric. However, the last part on the Democrats and Republicans can be expanded on, eg. A tip for Matthew-Expand on why do you think people have a "Democrat" Nature or a "Republican" Nature?
ReplyDeleteHello, I'm Aloysius Poh, 2i318.
ReplyDeleteThis is my viewpoint:
1) Women have their menstruation every month, and the egg is lost.
2) Men have millions of sperms.
Thus, the eggs and sperms are "wasted" in a way. They might as well be donated and fertilised for the research. This research could probably be some sort of advanced technology in the future and may be able to save many more lives. Thus i feel that there is nothing really wrong about using embryos for stem cells research.
Hi, Darrel from 2I3 here.
ReplyDeleteIt's an interesting article, and it is indeed difficult to justify what constitutes a life. However, you missed the key area of elaboration - what is being done to these embryonic stem cells (I do know, but for the sake of clarity) that has raised this debate on the integrity of life? The cartoon, while showing the differing views, oversimplifies the research conducted on these stem cells. So do elaborate on the research process, and have fun blogging!
Cheers,
Darrel
This is Wong Xu Yi from class 2i3. I feel that we should look at this issue from two perspectives - the ethical and scientific. From ethical point of view, we would think that destroying what could be the next Einstein, or just a human being, is just insane and inhumane because it is synonymous to taking away a life, or murder. But from the scientific point of view as what Aloysius had said, killing one of a vast database of life is insignificant, and if this insignificance gives light to the greater adventures of scientific discovery why not? Thus, we must not only look at this issue in a certain manner.
ReplyDeleteHi, Cheng Yao here. All this debate can be avoided by just using induced Pluripotent Stem Cells. These are, obviously, stem cells that can transform into any kind of other cell and also are induced from other kinds of mature cells. The currently most advanced kind of iPSC is the one from skin cells. These can be created in a short time from normak skin cels, and as the stem cells are formed out of the user;s own cells, there is no chance of rejection. Many countries are now ptting a lot of research funds into this, and the technology is likely to improve in the near future.
ReplyDelete(For further reading, pls see wikipedia article :induced Pluripotent Stem Cells".)
Cheers,
CY