Whether it’s politics, religion, ethics, or science, there will always be a conflict of interest. One opinion cannot be considered right or wrong as it's one persons personal views on the subject. There will always be pros and cons, there will always be disagreement, and there will always be a counter-argument. So how to we move forward towards the future of this issue? There has to be a line, a balance if you will, that needs to be found. Perhaps a compromise can be made in terms of pursuing a solution to this problem, because if we continue arguing and bickering about the ethics of this issue, no solution will present itself. We will never get anything done.
In terms of pros and cons from the viewpoint of a pharmacologist, the pros definitely outweigh the cons. As we all know, the research that the stem cell scientists have already completed has yet to yield a successful therapy, yet we remain hopeful. In terms of the economy, the search for a successful stem cell therapy procedure will automatically boost our country’s financial success 10 fold. Things like equipment expenditures and proposed capital will increase the economic activity throughout the industry, and throughout the country. Jobs will be created, and royalty payments due to state and local revenues will continue to add to our economy. The economic benefits to stem cell research are endless; we just have to put some energy into the research instead of the argument about ethics.
Other things that the country will gain from successful therapies are: lower health care costs, less job hours lost due to the diseases directly associated with these therapies, and more importantly, less premature deaths due to the main diseases that can and will be treated by stem cell therapies. The amount of animal testing will also be reduced because of the fact that embryos are a far better example of the human’s impact profile. Since we will be ultimately using these successful therapies on humans, the use of lab animals for inhumane animal testing will decrease exponentially.
As you can see, my viewpoint presented many positive benefits due to stem cell research. I can assure you that my views are, in a way, narrow-minded, and don’t take into account the other viewpoints people might bring up. In researching for the part of pharmacologist, the only downside that I came across would be spending all this money and not gaining a successful therapy. And as this is the only downside economically, I would say, let's get going!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
During my research, I came across some pretty staggering statistics regarding financial costs of diseases such as Alzheimer's, cancer, diabetes, HIV/AIDS, spinal cord injury, etc. In 2002, the estimated annual cost for cancer was over $189 billion. Diabetes costs Americans about $132 billion annually. Current drug treatment for HIV costs about $14,000 per year for each patient, and the average cost of caring for someone in the advanced stages of AIDS is $34,000 per year. Trauma and rehabilitation costs for spinal cord injuries are almost $250,000 for each spinal cord injured person.
These numbers do not justify the ethics of stem cell research. However, the financial costs of these diseases should still be taken into consideration because in the long run, stem cell research will save the federal government and individuals an incomprehensible amount of money. Furthermore, it could lower the costs of treatment, giving those who cannot currently afford treatments equal opportunities to be treated for their illnesses.
Although I already posted something similar to this in another part of the blog, I thought it would be helpful here as well to support Christina’s specifics. Each year in the United States 654,092 people die from heart disease, 550,270 die from cancer, 72,815 from diabetes, and over a 125,000 people die from accidents. These are just the people that die each year from the diseases. Many more people actually have the diseases and are costing money for care and treatment. If therapeutic cloning becomes a reality, this huge number of people that are costing the nation money and resources could possibly be cured. This would free up money in the long-run for aspects of society that currently do not have enough funding such as public education.
Although I agree with Forrest in that stem cell research's economic and medical potential is beyond our imagination, I believe that we need to take a more cautious approach. Often times, I feel like people are too focused on the possible rewards of the stem cell research that they often are willing to cross moral lines upon which this society has been established. Things such as dignity and respect of human life cannot exist in a society that is all about results.
The current problem is that the research continues on while we struggle to come up with a clear moral or legislative standards. And once the research makes progress, its accomplishments cannot be undone...
The statistics all of you have provided are extremely compelling - from the economic standpoint alone it seems that it would be absurd not to continue with embryonic stem cell research. I would, however, add that because it is such a profitable field, I really think that the research ought to be federally funded. If the federal government doesn't give funding, the research will still eventually occur in the private sector anyway, and only research that is financially profitable will occur. With federal funding, we will at the very least be able to regulate that research to some extent.
The statistics all of you have provided are extremely compelling - from the economic standpoint alone it seems that it would be absurd not to continue with embryonic stem cell research. I would, however, add that because it is such a profitable field, I really think that the research ought to be federally funded. If the federal government doesn't give funding, the research will still eventually occur in the private sector anyway, and only research that is financially profitable will occur. With federal funding, we will at the very least be able to regulate that research to some extent.
Post a Comment