Therapeutic Stem Cell Research, Annotated Bibliography Example

Thesis statement: The benefits of therapeutic stem cell research (as estimated) outweigh the draw-backs, which are formed primarily by moral reservations.

Bapat, S.A., and G.C. Mishra. “Stem Cell Pharmacogenomics.” Current Topics in Medicinal Chemistry 4.13 (2004): 1369-1381. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 17 July  2010.

Bapat and Mishra advocate the combination of therapeutic stem cells with pharmacological technology. In the future, such therapeutic stem cells are expected to cure or alleviate symptoms of Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, diabetes, liver failure, and stroke among others (1). Therapeutic stem cell research [TSCR] studies the cells which will be removed and again placed in the donor. The advances in this area could be used to advance health screening (2).

The elderly would see much of the benefit in halting the advancement of late onset disorders, such as Alzheimer’s or many cases of diabetes (3-4). In somatic stem cell transplanting, there is a great deal of maintenance required and no tolerance for error (5). Because the cells come from the patient’s own body, the acceptance rate for these organs is higher (6).

The much talked-about umbilical cord cells are immunologically strong because they have to be able to accept the father’s genetic influence without attacking cells- but still dominate. This makes the possible number of application for this “accepting” stem cell very promising for an incalculable number of possible future uses (7-8).

Konner, Melvin (2007). “Our Bodies, Our Choices,” American Prospect, vol. 18, May 2007, pp. 37-41. The American Prospect, Boston, MA.

“Our Bodies, Our Choices” begins with an examination of the Catholic Calvinist doctrine which said that even administering pain medications was interference with the human body, the creation of God. Konner disagrees and says that Christian teachings support TSCR- and not somatic cell implanting- when it could save, prolong, or greatly benefit a human life. What is more, it is not some perversion of nature; it is from the body and occurs naturally (1).

Konner then compares genes to steroids, and asks for answer as to which substances can be introduced into the body. The argument is that people have done a lot worse to themselves, and- unlike with some somatic cell research- the choice is always in the hands of the donor-recipient. (2). Somatic stem cell’s common “genetic enhancements”, on the other hand, are the eugenic experiments in perfection that create much of the distrust of the concept altogether (4). Konner wrote that “the new technologies dwell in a completely different moral universe” (4).

He also argues against the fear of subjugation. Whether out of fear of some Hitler figure taking charge to create a master race or out of fear that the rich will get richer by extending their lives far beyond their natural reach, selection of traits is the playground at which society will learn the lessons of moderation (4).

Zoloth, Laurie. U.S. Senate testimony, Washington, D.C. 29 Sept. 2004.  

Therapeutic stem cells could be used by a great variety of people and for a great variety of conditions if the technology were properly researched. Organ transplants are expensive and often do not work, but a cell specifically engineered to be accepting of its host is more likely to be accepted into the body. She reiterates that the rate of cell decay in TSCR is comparable to natural levels (Zoloth 1-2).

The ability to hold and interpret our own faith is at the center of America’s foundation, so the limitation of choices that bear no major, proven ill-effects seems to limit the American freedoms of choice and faith, writes Zoloth. Society has adjusted quickly to the concept of in vitro (which has to sacrifice some embryos) and abortion, which is not condoned in the majority of religious doctrines. (2-3).

Woodward, John. 2005. “Therapeutic Cloning Can Save Lives.”At Issue: The Ethics of Human    Cloning.  Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. College at Buffalo. 13 July 2010.

While Jeremy Rifkin received sixty plus signatures for the “Rifkin” petition to prevent stem cell research, two supporters soon changed their mind (Woodward 1). Forty Nobel laureates agree that the research is promising and should be pursued (3). When there is disagreement, it generally centers around somatic and/or embryonic stem cell research, because it is typically less successful and is even more morally controversial (1).

Fear dominates most of the censure of stem cell research- therapeutic and otherwise. Because they are trusted so little, the federal government keeps a very strict watch over any research or experimentation with stem cells (Zoloth 2-3). Therapeutic cell research can replaced damaged cells.

Works Cited

Bapat, S.A., and G.C. Mishra. “Stem Cell Pharmacogenomics.” Current Topics in Medicinal  Chemistry 4.13 (2004): 1369-1381. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 17 July 2010.

McGee, Glenn. (n.d.) University of Pennslyvania. Center for Bioethics. Retrieved from <http://find.galegroup.com/ovrc/infomark.do &contentSet=GSRC&type=retrieve&tabID=T010&prodId=OVRC&docId=EJ3010028219&source=gale&userGroupName=buffalostate&version=1.0>.

Konner, Melvin (2007). “Our Bodies, Our Choices,” American Prospect, vol. 18, May 2007,  pp. 37-41. The American Prospect, Boston, MA.

Woodward, John. 2005. “Therapeutic Cloning Can Save Lives.”At Issue: The Ethics of Human Cloning.  Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. College at Buffalo. 13 July 2010.

Zoloth, Laurie. U.S. Senate testimony, Washington, D.C. 29 Sept. 2004.