Stem cell Research: A Hotly Debated Topic

Irrespective of accuracy, embryonic stem or pluripotent cells are unspecialized cells that can differentiate into
specialized cells to produce more stem cells like blood, brain or muscles cells. Moreover, scientists discovered that
these cells act as a repair system for the body, replenishing adult tissues. Consequently, the debate over the question
whether embryonic stem cell research should be implemented or not has increased lately as this practice gained more
supporters. However, opponents believe this practice crosses moral boundaries. Regarding stem cell research,
supporters believe that it may bring about several benefits in human health, but those against claim that it is a criminal
act.
On the one hand, supporters of stem cell research assert it promotes utilitarianism.
On the one hand, supports of ESC research base their claims on two main arguments.
1. From a utilitarian approach, scientists believe that the benefits outweigh the ethical problem of
destroying embryonic life.
-surplus embryos discarded after a failed fertility treatment could be donated to scientific research.
-blastocyst o blastula is not a human being
-ESC can morph into all types of bodily tissue
Example: UK, 1.7 millions human embryos created for IVF discarded = 1.7 opportunities lost  scientists
could have used them for treating diseases like mascular degeneration and spinal cord injury or testing
new drugs
2. This practice has medical potential of ESC, thus improving people´s quality of life.
-diseases and certain conditions can be treated
-stem cell therapies like bone marrow transplant can treat leukemia and lymphoma
-moreover, neurodegenerative diseases like Parkinson and Alzheimer which doctors have not found a
cured yet.

On the other hand, opponents of stem cells research such religious and pro-life groups claim that scientific
research with human embryos entails murder and that it is not the only method.
1. When it comes to scientific research, life should be valued.
-life  begins at the moment of conception. Thus destruction of human embryos is tantamount to killing a
person. +the process of harvesting ESC implies the extinction of a human life since it involves the
destruction of the blastocyst.
-opponents argue that scientists cross moral boundaries not respecting human life  not distinguishing
what is good or bad. As a result, they should focus on  IPS cells.
2. Other methods: IPS cells
-method: adult stem cells better alternative than embryonic stem cells
-Example: 2006, Shinya Yamanaka  discovery: stimulation of a patient’s own cells to behave like embryonic
stem cells.  This means: skin cells go back to embryonic state (characteristic that makes them able to morph
into different types of tissues) called IPS cell= induced pluripotent cell generated from adult cells human
embryos would not be destroyed.
-medical conditions that would be treated: spinal cord injuries, transplantation not recognized by patient´s
immune system, thus avoiding transplant rejection

To sum up, embryonic stem cell research has sparked much interest since it is a controversial issue. This has
led the public to support or oppose to this practice. While supporters of ESC research believe it is a medical
breakthrough able to cure different diseases, opponents argue that scientists are tinkering with human nature
and not respecting the value of life. Whether embryonic stem cell research is implemented or not, it cannot be
denied that it has been a groundbreaking finding for humankind.
 GMOs: Threats or Solutions
Biotechnology has many applications, but it is within the field of crop production and agriculture that genetic
modification is hailed as a magic solution to alleviate famine-stricken nations. This practice has sparked off
much interest and public debate. That is why, it is considered controversial. The introduction and consumption
of genetically modified food and organisms has significant arguments in favor and against that will be analyzed
in this essay.

Irrespective of accuracy, genetically modified food and crops are artificially altered organisms. In other words,
by manipulating of the genetic make-up of plants and animals, genes from one species can be artificially
inserted into another, unrelated one. Consequently, this practice has sparked much interest and heated
debated. While GMOs advocates hailed genetic modification as a magic solution for world´s hunger,
opponents argue that it is an ethically dubious practice. The introduction and consumption of GM food and
crops has significant arguments in favor and against which will be analyzed in this essay.

On the one hand, pro-GMO food lobbies based their claims on two main arguments.
1. One of the arguments put forward is that GMOs can increase crop production.
-field of agriculture increase crop yieldsolution to famine-stricken nations
Rice/potatogenetically modifiedto withstand extreme weather conditions like droughts and flooding.
-Example: Pamela Ronald, plant geneticist, supported a project to enhance food security in developing
countries using Golden rice. This type of ricegenetically modifiedbeta-carotene precursor of VIt.
Abe able toprevent children from getting blind & provide balanced diet and reduce malnutrition

2. Another argument in favor of GM is that it offers substantial economic benefits.

-higher yields= extra production at lower costs (increasing the stranglehold of both biotech companies an
farmers) => win-win situation
Example: report found farmers in developing countries (south America, Africa) received 5 U$D for every
dollar invested in GM crops.

Taking all this into account, genetic engineering can be used as another modern toll to increase crop
production and boost farmers’ profits.

On the other hand, opponents of GMOs state that this method has significant drawbacks regarding the
environment and human health.
1. GM foods can pose a threat to biodiversity/environment.
-GM crops resistant/tolerant SOmore use of pesticides. The use of pesticides like ROUNDUP is a
glyphosate-based pesticide which has been classified as dangerous to the environment (European Union)
And the WHO concluded it was “probably carcinogenic to humans”
-Example: non pest insect population and wildlifecome under fire  monarch butterfly population 
dropped 90% since ROUNDUP contains hazardous substances dangerous for insect population
2. GMOs contribute to the increase in disease in human health.
-Alters the genetic structure of plantsis a laboratory-based technique which is an uncontrolled process
 leading to possible diseasespose allergy risks to people, high incidence of cancer (non-hogkin´s
lymphoma)

All in all, GMOs can pose a serious threaet not only to the biodiversity/environment but also to human
health.
In conclusion, genetic modification of food and plants is a highly controversial practice which has its
supporters and opponents. Although some believe it can be beneficial for farmers and agricultural
companies, others believe it can bring about dangerous effect on the environment causing the death of its
population and on humans.