3rd Article!!

Ross, Timberly. "Public Misinformed About Stem Cell Issue." USA Today. 20 Dec. 2006. USA Today. 20 Dec. 2006 http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/genetics/2006-12-19-stem-cell-confusion_x.htm?csp=34.

This article is my third artifact. It explains the exaggerated facts both sides of the issue use to promote their viewpoints. As the title states, both sides have misinformed the public about how immoral or helpful stem cell research is.

The article states this about the beliefs of both parties. "But from an anti-abortion standpoint, human embryonic stem cell research is immoral, because isolating the cells destroys embryos, what some believe is the starting point of human life. Anti-abortion advocates cite the same argument in opposing abortion.
"The beef is that there is no question that embryos are destroyed in the harvesting of stem cells," Maxwell said. "Now you are destroying a human being."
Many scientists disagree. Crouse, who specializes in embryonic stem cells, said it boils down to a difference in perspective about when human life begins.
He said, "There is no baby, no abortion."
In fact, Crouse said, the embryos that are used are essentially medical waste.
Most embryonic stem cells used in U.S. research come from embryos left over from in vitro fertilization — where a woman's eggs are fertilized outside the womb and the resulting embryos are implanted in the uterus. If the embryos are not implanted, they are typically destroyed.
"If it's unethical to destroy an embryo," Crouse asked, "why is it so much more evil to use a stem cell for a good purpose?"
Maxwell said that rationalization is simply intended to ease people's fears about using embryos.
The small number of embryos left from in vitro fertilization cannot satisfy the needs of the scientific community, and scientists will one day want to create embryos for use in research, according to his coalition."

"More research has been conducted on adult stem cells, which were discovered in the 1960s. There are commonly used today in bone marrow transplants.
In contrast, embryonic stem cells were first derived in 1998.
Crouse also said that opponents of embryonic stem cell research make weighty claims about the medical benefits of adult stem cells.
A July 2006 article in the journal Science refuted claims that there were 65 treatments that utilize adult stem cells. In truth, the article stated, there are seven.
"A great deal of research needs to be done," Crouse said."

This anwsers some of the questions I posed last week. I now know that there are not enough stem cells in supply to continue research. This poses a problem in the advancement of curing certain diseases. I hope that our government will soon legalize the removal of stem cells once again. Here are some questions raised by reading the article.

1. If there are only seven applications for adult stem cells, is it truly worth their extraction?
2. Just how exaggerated are the claims of both parties? How badly misinformed are we?
3. How has this misinformation affected the descision of legalizing their extraction?
4. How old is "Adult" stem cells?

Artifact # 2

"Stem Cell Information." Stem Cell Information. 6 Oct. 2006. 12 Dec. 2006 http://stemcells.nih.gov/.

This resource is the government database for stem cell research, and thus contains a wealth of information. It has several pages of information about the government stance on stem cell research, what stem cell research is, what progress they have made on curing certain diseases, and ethics issues.

This is what it said the official U.S. policy to be: "On August 9th, 2001, President George W. Bush announced that federal funds may be awarded for research using human embryonic stem cells if the following criteria are met:
The derivation process (which begins with the destruction of the embryo) was initiated prior to 9:00 P.M. EDT on August 9, 2001.
The stem cells must have been derived from an embryo that was created for reproductive purposes and was no longer needed.
Informed consent must have been obtained for the donation of the embryo and that donation must not have involved financial inducements."

This is the site's description of the potential of stem cells. "Studying stem cells will help us understand how they transform into the dazzling array of specialized cells that make us what we are. Some of the most serious medical conditions, such as cancer and birth defects, are due to problems that occur somewhere in this process. A better understanding of normal cell development will allow us to understand and perhaps correct the errors that cause these medical conditions.
Another potential application of stem cells is making cells and tissues for medical therapies. Today, donated organs and tissues are often used to replace those that are diseased or destroyed. Unfortunately, the number of people needing a transplant far exceeds the number of organs available for transplantation. Pluripotent stem cells offer the possibility of a renewable source of replacement cells and tissues to treat a myriad of diseases, conditions, and disabilities including Parkinson's and Alzheimer's diseases, spinal cord injury, stroke, burns, heart disease, diabetes, osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis."

I have learned that there have only been 71 stem cells available for research since the president banned their extraction in 2001. This leads me to a few questions.

Questions:

1. Is this enough for the scientists to complete their research?
2. Are you able to use one stem cell for many experiments?
3. With only 71 stem cells, what would be the availibility of such tissue transplants? Would the people who recieve the transplant accept the new organ or reject it?

Artifact One

Lacayo, Richard. "How Bush Got There." Time.Com. 12 Aug. 2001. Time Magazine. 6 Dec. 2006 http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101010820-170839,00.html.

This article provided a very good start for my research on Stem Cells. In addition to providing a good look into what scientists do to stem cells, it brought in two opposing viewpoints and explained both platforms well.

The article was written five years ago, in August, when Bush was deciding whether to fund Stem Cell Research for the first time. Back in 2001, Stem Cell research was still a relativley obscure branch of medical research, when most of the people who opposed it know only that it took human embryos and used them for research, which was bad. Bush, to placate the Religious Right with this viewpoint, had promised not to fund it.

The article continued to say that Bush did not stick to his promise, to the letter. Instead, he formed a compromise with scientists, as he did not want to impede medical progress, that he will not fund the extraction of Stem Cells from embryos, but he would allow research to continue on already extracted stem cells, of which the scientists said that there are enough to use, but not as many as they would like.

The article provided me with this information on what the process of Stem Cell Research is: "These are cells extracted from embryos created for fertility treatments but not used to produce children. The extracted stem cells potentially can be made to grow into any cell in the human body, making them an extraordinary resource in the fight against Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes and other diseases." As this was what was known five years ago, I thought that this article would be a good starting point to see the progress of Stem Cell Research from then to now.


Questions:

1. How has the process and knowledge of Stem Cell Research changed from 2001 to today?
2. Are there still enough embryos to continue research?
3. How has Stem Cell research contributed to the cure of such serious diseases as diebetes and Alzheimer's?