The article discusses the migration of leading tem cell scientists from the United States to countries such as China and Singapore who have less restrictive laws regarding the research that may be conducted. As a result Of this China and Singapore are emerging as the forerunners in this new science. The article notes that China is less welcoming to scientists because they prefer their own scientists to foreigners, but their permissive regulations promote the rapid growth of the science. Singapore in contrast welcomes foreign scientists and has similar laws conducive to scientific research and less restrictive regulations of their raciest.
The claims being made in the article are substantiated by statistical data. The aspects that I find suspect is the article’s failure to address the moral implications of such permissive regulations. This article supports my argument because it illustrates how scientists are deliberately leaving the United States because of its restrictive policies for other more permissive countries. This is evidence of how the restrictive policies of the United States are indirectly inhibiting progress because of the so called “brain drain” it is causing.
The article uses direct correlation teen the inconsistent stance the United States has taken against stem cell research and the science’s attempt to conduct such research. 2. Doling, G. (2009). A Defense of Embryonic Stem Cell Research. Indiana Law Journal, 84(4), 1203-1257. URL: http-web. A. Obscenest. Com. Lib. Epic. Dowdiest/ detail? Vivid=7&sid=cd46c4a3-250a-4fc7- [email protected]’sNnNpdGlJ9ZWhvche author of this article egregious Doodling. D. The main point of this article is that human embryonic stem cell research should be supported because of its potential to advance medical science.
The author states that there are two purposes for the article. His first point is that we do not need to decide if a fertilized egg is a human life or not to decide on the “propriety and morality of stem cell research” (Doodling). The second point is to justify the research with the understanding that an embryo is not simply and object but a human being deserving of respect and dignity. The argument consists Of seven parts, including reproductive rights and an answer to specific objections. Transubstantiation’s support my argument by providing evidence that the law as it is now indexers progress of research.
There is nothing suspect or weak about his arguments. All claims made in the article are substantiated with valid references. The article specifically add rhesus’s topic of my argument in detail and deconstructs several aspects of the topic. The information presented in the argument is detailed and most of it could be directly referenced to support my argument. 3. Shoveled. (2012). Statements: Flexible friends. Nature, 483(7387), Sisterhood’s 0. 1038/assayer: http://O-web. a.AebObscenestcoComliLibepEpicduDuhghostbebeef9996655e6cae4ecommissionaire’sdunproductiveGQuittingbad9adAN=7ah12355 The author of this article is Inharmoniousness Shoveled point of this article is a discussion of stem cell treatments as a potential curative measure for muscular miscalculation among other disorders that were previously untreatable. The use of pluripotplenteousffer great promise but maybe held back by opponents of stem cell research. She further states that the laws and regulations set forth by the government are inconsistent and vary from administration to administration.
The political party in office tends to tailor policy changes depending on their views of their superconductivity’s. The article names certain religious organizations strictly opposed to research in the United States who influence the policymakers on the issue of stem cell research. The only aspect about the article that is questionable is that the author is vague regarding some of the research that she discusses in the article. The article asserts that although improvements have been made in the stem cell regulations, fewer than 200 of the stem cell lines are available for research as of 2009.
This puts substantial limitations on the amount and hypes of haplessly research that may be conducted in the U. S. The evidence in this article supports my argument by outlining how the policies make research difficult for scientists because in order to utilize stem cells that are not derived from those federal lines, must be funded privately or by those individual states conducting the research. 4. Campbell, A. (2005). Ethos and Economics: Examining the Rationale Underlying Stem Cell and Cloning Research Policies in the United States, Germany, and Japan. American Journal Of Law & Medicine, 31 47-86.
URL: http://()search. ebscohosObscenestb.ComccBiedEpichiDeedrticle Is Angela Campbell. The focus of this article is to compare and contrast the present policies in the United States, Germany, and Japan, regarding embryonic stem cell research and the study of cloning. There have been similar arguments in all three countries regarding acceptable practices, regulations, and oversight Of these new sciences. The degrees in which the topics and technology maybe researched or whether they should be allowed at all are a highly controversial subject around the world.
From a scientific point of view, the ongoing debates hinder progress. From a moral and ethical standpoint, some aspects of the research may be wrong. The article names three common aspects of policies in the different countries, cultural norms, scientific freedom, and potential economic gain. Legislators seek to balance all three and as a result have created policies that are not clearly defined and lacking in consistency. Each countries unique history, value system, and societies directly impact the laws in place that define the regulation of research.
All three countries are industrial giants on the cutting edge of medical science and biotechnology. Part three of the article pertains specifically to my research topic and discusses the social and economical influences that have impacted stem cell research policies in the United States. It goes on to highlight how the political ideals of different administrations have influenced the legislature, regulating research in the United States. The article provides individual examples of laws and actions taken by the government and how they have held back stem cell research since its inception. 5.
She states that more than just he issue of morality requires further scrutiny in the present debate. She names truth-telling and scientific integrity, resource allocation, and responsibility regarding civic discourse and bioethicbioethicsersies as subjects that need to be addressed in the present debate on stem cell research. She warns that the current hype surrounding stem cell research, because of lack of study, may only prove to be less beneficial than anticipated. She states that the subject has become so politicized that relevant research is difficult to obtain.
It discusses recent advancements In induced plenipotentiaries that may be examined and thoroughly researched without necessitating further policy changes. Many of these other cell sources through continued research have the same potential benefits as embryonic cells. There is almost no moral or ethical debate surrounding the other types of cells being used for research. The article claims that continued research in induced plenipotentiaries produce therapeutic equivalent benefits as their embryonic counterparts.
The only thing suspect about the article is that it fails o recognize the potential risks and drawbacks with the alternate stem cell sources. This article does not support my working thesis statement because it focuses On alternative research that may be conducted without violating present regulations. The research methods discussed in this article are not hindered by the policies here in the United States because our laws primarily prohibit embryonic stem cell research. Genetic modification and cell reprogramming are the subject of some ethical debate but are not specific to my research topic.