Arguments for and Against Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Arguments for and Against Embryonic Stem Cell Research On March 9, 2009, President Barack Obama lifted, by Executive Order, the Bush administrations eight-year ban on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Remarked the President, Today... we will bring the change that so many scientists and researchers, doctors and innovators, patients and loved ones have hoped for, and fought for, these past eight years. In Obamas Remarks on Lifting the Embryonic Stem Cell Research Ban, he also signed a Presidential Memorandum directing the development of a strategy for restoring scientific integrity to government decision-making. Bush Vetoes In 2005, H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005, was passed by the Republican-led House in May 2005 by a vote of 238 to 194. The Senate passed the bill in July 2006 by a bipartisan vote of 63 to 37. President Bush opposed embryonic stem cell research on ideological grounds. He exercised his first presidential veto on July 19, 2006, when he refused to allow H.R. 810 to become law. Congress was unable to muster enough votes to override the veto. In April 2007, the Democratic-led Senate passed the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007 by a vote of 63 to 34. In June 2007, the House passed the legislation by a vote of 247 to 176. President Bush vetoed the bill on June 20, 2007. Public Support for Embryonic Stem Cell Research For years, all polls report that the American public STRONGLY supports federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Reported the Washington Post in March 2009: In a January Washington Post-ABC News poll, 59 percent of Americans said they supported loosening the current restrictions, with support topping 60 percent among both Democrats and independents. Most Republicans, however, stood in opposition (55 percent opposed; 40 percent in support). Despite public perceptions, embryonic stem cell research was legal in the U.S. during the Bush administration: the President had banned the use of federal funds for research. He did not ban private and state research funding, much of which was being conducted by pharmaceutical mega-corporations. In Fall 2004, California voters approved a $3 billion bond to fund embryonic stem cell research. In contrast, embryonic stem cell research is prohibited in Arkansas, Iowa, North and South Dakota and Michigan. Developments in Stem Cell Research In August 2005, Harvard University scientists announced a breakthrough discovery that fuses blank embryonic stem cells with adult skin cells, rather than with fertilized embryos, to create all-purpose stem cells viable to treat diseases and disabilities. This discovery doesnt result in the death of fertilized human embryos and thus would effectively respond to pro-life objections to embryonic stem cell research and therapy. Harvard researchers warned that it could take up to ten years to perfect this highly promising process. As South Korea, Great Britain, Japan, Germany, India and other countries rapidly pioneer this new technological frontier, the US is being left farther and farther behind in medical technology. The US is also losing out on billions in new economic opportunities at a time when the country sorely needs new sources of revenues. Background Therapeutic cloning is a method to produce stem cell lines that were genetic matches for adults and children. Steps in therapeutic cloning are: An egg is obtained from a human donor.The nucleus (DNA) is removed from the egg.Skin cells are taken from the patient.The nucleus (DNA) is removed from a skin cell.A skin cell nucleus is implanted in the egg.The reconstructed egg, called a blastocyst, is stimulated with chemicals or electric current.In 3 to 5 days, the embryonic stem cells are removed.The blastocyst is destroyed.Stem cells can be used to generate an organ or tissue that is a genetic match to the skin cell donor. The first 6 steps are same for reproductive cloning. However, instead of removing stem cells, the blastocyst is implanted in a woman and allowed to gestate to birth. Reproductive cloning is outlawed in most countries. Before Bush stopped federal research in 2001, a minor amount of embryonic stem cell research was performed by US scientists using embryos created at fertility clinics and donated by couples who no longer needed them. The pending bipartisan Congressional bills all propose using excess fertility clinic embryos. Stem cells are found in limited quantities in every human body and can be extracted from adult tissue with great effort but without harm. The consensus among researchers has been that adult stem cells are limited in usefulness because they can be used to produce only a few of the 220 types of cells found in the human body. However, evidence has recently emerged that adult cells may be more flexible than previously believed. Embryonic stem cells are blank cells that have not yet been categorized or programmed by the body and can be prompted to generate any of the 220 human cell types. Embryonic stem cells are extremely flexible. Pros Embryonic stem cells are thought by most scientists and researchers to hold potential cures for spinal cord injuries, multiple sclerosis, diabetes, Parkinsons disease, cancer, Alzheimers disease, heart disease, hundreds of rare immune system and genetic disorders and much more. Scientists see almost infinite value in the use of embryonic stem cell research to understand human development and the growth and treatment of diseases. Actual cures are many years away, though, since research has not progressed to the point where even one cure has yet been generated by embryonic stem cell research. Over 100 million Americans suffer from diseases that eventually may be treated more effectively or even cured with embryonic stem cell therapy. Some researchers regard this as the greatest potential for the alleviation of human suffering since the advent of antibiotics. Many pro-lifers believe that the proper moral and religious course of action is to save existing life through embryonic stem cell therapy. Cons Some staunch pro-lifers and most pro-life organizations regard the destruction of the blastocyst, which is a laboratory-fertilized human egg, to be the murder of human life. They believe that life begins at conception, and that destruction of this pre-born life is morally unacceptable. They believe that it is immoral to destroy a few-days-old human embryo, even to save or reduce suffering in existing human life. Many also believe that insufficient attention been given to explore the potential of adult stem cells, which have already been used to successfully cure many diseases. They also argue that too little attention has been paid to the potential of umbilical cord blood for stem cell research. They also point out that no cures have yet been produced by embryonic stem cell therapy. At every step of the embryonic stem cell therapy process, decisions are made by scientists, researchers, medical professionals and women who donate eggs...decisions that are fraught with serious ethical and moral implications. Those against embryonic stem cell research argue that funding should be used to greatly expand adult stem research, to circumvent the many moral issues involving the use of human embryos. Lifting the Ban Now that President Obama has lifted the federal funding ban for embryonic stem cell research, financial support will soon flow to federal and state agencies to commence the necessary scientific research. The timeline for therapeutic solutions available to all Americans could be years away. President Obama observed on March 9, 2009, when he lifted the ban: Medical miracles do not happen simply by accident. They result from painstaking and costly research, from years of lonely trial and error, much of which never bears fruit, and from a government willing to support that work... Ultimately, I cannot guarantee that we will find the treatments and cures we seek. No President can promise that. But I can promise that we will seek them actively, responsibly, and with the urgency required to make up for lost ground.

5 Differences Between Spanish and English Object Pronouns

5 Differences Between Spanish and English Object Pronouns Because both are Indo-European languages, the grammars of Spanish and English are quite similar. Even so, grammatical differences between the two languages abound. Among them is the way that object pronouns are treated. Here are five ways that Spanish deals with object pronouns in ways that might not seem familiar to English speakers: Direct vs. Indirect Pronouns In the third person, Spanish distinguishes between direct and indirect object pronouns. The English third-person object pronouns are him, her and it in the singular and them in the plural, and the same words are used whether the object is direct or indirect. (In the simplest sense, although the distinctions dont always line up in the two languages, a direct object is one that is acted upon by a verb, while an indirect object is one affected by a verbs action even though the action is directed at someone or something else.) But in standard Spanish (exceptions are explained in our lesson on leà ­smo), the pronouns are distinguished like this: Singular direct objects: lo (masculine), la (feminine).Plural direct object: los (masculine), las (feminine).Singular indirect object: le.Plural indirect object: les. So while the simple English sentences I found her and I sent her a letter use the same pronoun her, a distinction is made in Spanish. The first sentence would be La encontrà ©, where la is a direct object, while the second would be Le mandà © una carta with le being the indirect object. (Letter or carta is the direct object.) Attaching Pronouns to Verbs In Spanish, object pronouns can be attached to some verbs. The pronouns can be attached to three verb forms: infinitives, gerunds and affirmative commands. The pronoun is written as part of the verb, and sometimes a written accent is needed to maintain the correct pronunciation. Here is an example of each of the verb types with an attached pronoun: Infinitive: Voy a amarte por siempre. (Im going to love you forever.)Gerund: Seguà ­an mirndonos. (They kept on looking at us.)Command:  ¡Cllate! (You shut up!) Different Distinctions The distinction between direct and indirect objects is different in the two languages. Taking note of which verbs require the use of le or les would be beyond the scope of this lesson. But it can be said that many Spanish verbs use the indirect-object pronoun where the pronoun in English would be viewed as a direct object. For example, in the sentence Le pidieron su direccià ³n (They asked him for his address), le is an indirect object. But in English, him would be viewed as a direct object because he was the one who was asked. The same is true in Le pegà ³ en la cabeza (They hit him in the head). Using Pronouns Redundantly It is common in Spanish to use an object pronoun even when the noun represented by the pronoun is explicitly stated. Such a redundant use of the pronoun often occurs when the object is named and appears before the verb: A Chris  le gusta escuchar mà ºsica. (Chris likes listening to music. See more in the lesson on gustar.)Toda la ropa la tenemos en descuento. (We have all the clothing on sale.) Note that the redundant pronoun isnt translated to English. The pronoun also is used redundantly in some cases to add emphasis, or often because thats what sounds right to native speakers even if such use isnt mandatory: Lo conocemos bien a este seà ±or. (We know this man well.)Le dieron un regalo a la nià ±a. (They gave a present to the girl.) Using Pronouns Alone Instead of In Phrases Spanish sometimes uses an indirect object pronoun where English would use a phrase. In English we often indicate who or what was affected by a verbs action with phrases such as for me or to him. In Spanish, it may not be necessary to make a phrase. The case where doing so sounds most unfamiliar may be with the verb ser (to be). For example, in Spanish you could say No me es posible for It is not possible for me. But similar constructions are possible with other verbs as well. For example, Le robaron el dinero means They stole the money from him or They stole the money from her.