The Human Embryonic Stem Cell Debate: Science, Ethics, and Public Policy
The Human Embryonic Stem Cell Debate: Science, Ethics, and Broadcast Policy Books
Product Description
Human embryonic stem cells can divide indefinitely and have the potential to develop into many types of tissue. Research on these cells is essential to one of the most intriguing medical frontiers, regenerative medicine. It also raises a host of trying ethical issues and has sparked fantastic broadcast interest and controversy. This book offers a foundation for thought about the many issues caught up in human embryonic stem cell research. It considers questions about the nature of human life, the limits of intervention into human cells and tissues, and the meaning of our corporeal existence. The fact that stem cells may be derived from living embryos that are ruined in the administer or from aborted fetuses ties the discussion of stem cell research to the ongoing debates on abortion. In addition to these issues, the essays in the book touch on broader questions such as who should approve controversial research and what constitutes human dignity, respect, and justice. The book contains contributions from the Ethics Advisory Board of the Geron Coroporation; excerpts from expert testimony given before the National Bioethics Advisory Commission, which helped shape recent National Institutes of Health policy; and original analytical essays on the implications of this research.
Buy Cheap The Human Embryonic Stem Cell Debate: Science, Ethics, and Broadcast Policy Online
Related posts:
Embryonic stem cell research has yielded nothing. Treated nothing. Cured nothing. The thought that it can cure disease is absurd. There’s 2 MAJOR problems. 1) The cells tend to be rejected by the immune system, and 2) they cause teratomas. There has been research on embryonic and adult stem cells since the fifties. Only adult stem cells have ever produced cures. Lots of them. Embryonic stem cell research has provided nothing. In 2001 the NY Times ran a front page tale about Parkinson’s patients who had been injected with fetal brain tissue. Not only was there NO positive effect on any of the patients, 15% of them had major side effects. In the words of the researchers, the patients “writhe and twist, jerk their heads, fling their arms about, chew constantly, their wrists flex and distend, and their fingers go up and down. Unfortunately the side effects were permanent. Ironically, Christopher Reeves died coming up on a miracle even as at the same time a Korean woman who had been paralyzed for 19 years started to walk thanks to an injection of umbilical cord stem cells into the injured part of her spine. If we are to make any sort of difference, we must continue our research with Adult stem cells and stop wasting our time with Embryonic stem cells.
Rating: 2 / 5
Stem cells- the leading newspaper topic before the September 11 horrors and a topic to which we are of necessity returning. This book is an amazingly readable compilation of in rank on the science, the positions. the impact of the research (or failure to do the research),and the pros and cons of regulation. In a time when not only the government’s but also the broadcast’s views on this come forth are in a constant state of review, these editors have managed to pull together a collection that will not become a stale item, even though addressing a “hot” topic. The selections are ones that someone without medical or research scientist training can readily know, yet not simplistic to the extent of ever bordering on dull. Truly a must read.
Rating: 5 / 5
I bought this book for a class, but it’s pretty fascinating anyway. The Catholic viewpoints in here are a bit… unrepresentative, though. The Jewish viewpoints were very enlightening.
Rating: 4 / 5
Holland et al. made a excellent introduction to the broadcast policy and science behind the current embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) debate, but even as this book has “debate” in its title, there was small material disagreement between most of the contributors. A more robust, representative exchange of thoughts would have made this book 5-star material.
The book is divided into several themes.The first three chapters are on the basic science and history of stem cell research, and the editors’ choice of contributors is impeccable: they include James Thomson, who first isolated human embryonic stem cells, and Thomas Okarma, president and CEO of Geron Corp., which is the private firm that has spearheaded the development of Thomson’s discoveries.
The second section segues from history to broadcast policy and ethics, including analyses of the National Bioethics Advisory Group’s report on stem cells in 1999. This by and large was a excellent introduction to how the government, and specifically the Clinton administration, started to answer to stem cells. Erik Parens has a excellent article on how people tried to differentiate between the morality of experimenting on embryos from IVF clinics and embryos made specifically for research, and a few other dilemmas stemming from current human embryonic stem cell (hES) sources and protocols.
We then go into the third section, which contains religious perspectives on ESCR. This is where I found the term “debate” a misnomer, as for the exception of Gilbert Meilaender, a Protestant thelogian, all the religious commentators tried to show how their traditions may possibly tolerate, if not actively approve of, ESCR. Now I know that many religious people approve of ESCR, but the deafening silence on the challenger’s part (excepting Dr. Meilaender’s rather small piece) concerns me. Ironically, in the following section, sociologists Paul Root Wolpe and Glenn McGee note that the majority of the ESCR dialogue has been within a scientific community with an active interest in promoting ESCR. This seems to be just the case in this book.
The fourth chapter is a broadcast policy section, with the aforementioned excellent essay by Wolpe and McGee on the nature of the ESCR debate. The essays handle issues like whether pressure will be exerted on women in fertility clinics to donate unused embryos to labs, whether the poor will get stem cell therapy, government oversight, and several other matter-of-fact concerns that must be addressed if one promotes ESCR and any future applications it may result in. A few essays bear particular note: throughout the debates on ESCR in past three years 1999, I didn’t hear much of the minority or feminist viewpoint on ESCR, so the opinions of Suzanne Holland (who appears earlier in Section II), Margaret McLean, and Cynthia Cohen were particularly handy. Thomas Shannon had some excellent points about whether the ESCR funding would deprive people of more basi broadcast health programs.
On the whole, this is a helpful book, but I suggest that in addition to reading the thoughts in this volume, you should check out Richard Doerflinger, the research ethics group Do No Harm or some of the others who oppose embryonic research. If this book were to do justice to both sides, it would be a truly first-class resource.
Rating: 3 / 5
Holland et al. made a excellent introduction to the broadcast policy and science behind the current embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) debate, but even as this book has “debate” in its title, there was small material disagreement between most of the contributors. A more robust, representative exchange of thoughts would have made this book 5-star material.
The book is divided into several themes.The first three chapters are on the basic science and history of stem cell research, and the editors’ choice of contributors is impeccable: they include James Thomson, who first isolated human embryonic stem cells, and Thomas Okarma, president and CEO of Geron Corp., which is the private firm that has spearheaded the development of Thomson’s discoveries.
The second section segues from history to broadcast policy and ethics, including analyses of the National Bioethics Advisory Group’s report on stem cells in 1999. This by and large was a excellent introduction to how the government, and specifically the Clinton administration, started to answer to stem cells. Erik Parens has a excellent article on how people tried to differentiate between the morality of experimenting on embryos from IVF clinics and embryos made specifically for research, and a few other dilemmas stemming from current human embryonic stem cell (hES) sources and protocols.
We then go into the third section, which contains religious perspectives on ESCR. This is where I found the term “debate” a misnomer, as for the exception of Gilbert Meilaender, a Protestant thelogian, all the religious commentators tried to show how their traditions may possibly tolerate, if not actively approve of, ESCR. Now I know that many religious people approve of ESCR, but the deafening silence on the challenger’s part (excepting Dr. Meilaender’s rather small piece) concerns me. Ironically, in the following section, sociologists Paul Root Wolpe and Glenn McGee note that the majority of the ESCR dialogue has been within a community with an active interest in promoting ESCR. This seems to be just the case in this book.
The fourth chapter is a broadcast policy section, with the aforementioned excellent essay by Wolpe and McGee on the nature of the ESCR debate. The essays handle issues like whether pressure will be exerted on women in fertility clinics to donate unused embryos to labs, whether the poor will get stem cell therapy, government oversight, and several other matter-of-fact concerns that must be addressed if one promotes ESCR and any future applications it may result in. During the height of the ESCR debate, I didn’t hear much of the minority or feminist viewpoint on ESCR, so the opinions of Suzanne Holland (who appears earlier in Section II), Margaret McLean, and Cynthia Cohen were particularly handy.
On the whole, this is a helpful book, but I suggest that in addition to reading the thoughts in this volume, you should check out Richard Doerflinger, the research ethics group Do No Harm or some of the others who oppose embryonic research. If this book were to do justice to both sides, it would be a much better resource.
Rating: 3 / 5