Scientist's on Limits!
Sarah Klebieko's Essay- Stem Cell Research
Stem Cell Research- scientific advancement argumentative essay
As said in the Stem cells opposing viewpoints article, stem cells “have the ability to divide and reproduce themselves for long periods of time. They are unspecialized, meaning they do not perform a specific function like muscle cells or nerve cells. But they are also pluripotent, meaning they have the ability to divide and make specialized cells—such as muscle, nerve, or skin cells—and even have the potential to make entire body parts.” There are 2 main types of stem cells; embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells, and both of them are being used for research. Mark Udall once said, “Stem cells have the potential to be used to treat and better understand some of the world's most deadly and disabling diseases.” Stem cell research is a process that is continuing to grow in order to help cure diseases. However, it has been an ongoing controversy whether it’s pushing scientific limits or not. Stem cell research is an innovative process that should have scientific limits on embryonic stem cells but not adult stem cells.
Embryonic stem cells are found in human embryos, meaning, that in order to get to the stem cells, fertilized embryos must be dismembered. After a human egg becomes fertilized it forms into a blastocyst (this is when scientists dismember the embryo), which is a ball of clustered cells. Cells are living things, meaning, scientists are destroying a human being. Morally, it is wrong to destroy human life. A human life is being destroyed; a human life that didn’t get the chance to experience life. Iain Torrance, a professor of Divinity in Aberdeen stated in EMBO reports, “I believe we have an authority to intervene, so as heal and restore, but not to manipulate and destroy.” By using and researching on embryonic stem cells, science is being manipulated and destroyed. Life isn’t mean to be destroyed, it’s meant to be created. As well as embryonic stem cell research destroying life, it can also harm someone rather than help someone. It is said that embryonic stem cells can cause tumors when injected in someone due to their rapid growth. In a Roe House Gov. article, a medical doctor stated, “ I do not support federal embryonic stem cell research because the moral harm outweighs the scientific good...adult stem cells are successfully being used to treat medical illnesses, adult stem cells will have more useful information for treatment rather than embryonic.” Embryonic stem cell research isn’t as effective as adult stem cells and is interfering with natural science that is meant to be preserved and respected. Clearly, science should have limits, especially if human life is being destroyed. The book Frankenstein by Mary Shelley, accurately depicts why science should have limits. Frankenstein tells a story of a man named victor that created a monster by destroying natural science and not following god’s way of creation. The monster turned out to be ugly, scary, evil…a true representation of a monster. Throughout the book, the monster grows into an evil character by killing many of Victors loved ones. In the book, Victor states, “ I beheld the wretch- the miserable monster whom I had created…[I walked] up and down in the greatest agitation, listening attentively, catching and fearing each sound as if it were to announce the approach of the demoniacal corpse to which I had so miserably given life”(pg 56). By pushing scientific limits, victor created a form of nature that shouldn’t have been created and he didn’t follow the ways how humans should truly be created. Embryonic stem cells coincide with the book Frankenstein because they are both extending passed scientific limits; natural science is being tampered with in ways that it shouldn’t be. Science needs to have limits so life can be preserved and respected the way it should be.
Adult stem cells don’t ruin natural science, therefore, they should not have scientific limits. Thankfully, adult stem cells aren’t found in human embryos; they are found in our tissues and organs. Compared to embryonic stem cells, adult stem cells are a much better option. Not only can adult stem cells help cure diseases and repair damaged tissue, they don’t use a dismembered human embryo. Also, adult stem cells have not created tumors and there has been a larger success rate with using adult stem cells. In an article called Adult stem cell research basics by Minnesota citizens concerned for life, it is stated that, “It is only adult stem cell research that has had any success in yielding treatments…adult stem cells can possess the flexibility of embryonic stem cells…there is no need to continue the life-destroying, unsuccessful, unethical, and unnecessary embryonic stem cell research.” There is no need to use embryonic stem cells when adult stem cells work successfully. By using adult stem cells, a human life could be saved and life isn’t being destroyed. Continuing to do research allows scientists to make progress in finding more ways to help others in a humane way. If adult stem cell research could potentially cure major diseases in a natural way, then it should be allowed to push scientific limits.
The topic of embryonic stem cells has been a controversy between many people. As already mentioned, embryonic stem cells are stem cells found in dismembered human embryos. Some people believe this is morally wrong and destroying life and some say an embryo isn’t a human yet. An article called Stem cells opposing viewpoints states, “Some argue that the embryos destroyed in stem cell extraction have no nervous systems and thus have no consciousness or awareness.” The embryo may not have a nervous system but, the Catholic church and many others believe life begins right after conception occurs. About 5 days after conception, a blastocyst; which is a bundle of cells, begins to form. A cell is defined as the building block of life and the smallest form of life. Therefore, using embryonic stems cells kills a form of life. Also, an embryo begins to form a heart beat 3-4 weeks after conception. A heart beat is a form of life, it is a vital need to stay alive. A cluster of cells and the formation of a heart beat may not be drastic but its proof that the embryo is a human being, a human being that could potentially be getting killed. Also, people believe embryonic stem cells work at a faster pace and there’s a larger supply of them. However, adult stem cells work at a slower pace which means there won’t be a chance of tumors forming and by pushing scientific limits, there can be new innovations on finding more adult stem cells. People may say that an embryo is not a human but facts show that an embryo is made up of living substances and forms a heartbeat, scientists are destroying life.
Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs and opinions. Some believe an embryo is not considered a human so it's acceptable for scientists to do research on it. Or some people believe we should not research embryonic stem cells because they are a human. However, research shows that embryos are humans. Embryos consist of cells and a heartbeat; which are 2 vital parts of life. By putting limits on the science involved in embryonic stem cell research, life will not be destroyed. On the other hand, adult stem cells could be a drastic improvement to our world. Allowing adult stem cells to push scientific limits (in a humane way) can continue to help cure deadly diseases. By putting scientific limits on embryonic stem cell research and not adult stem cell research, our world will become more successful with curing diseases in an appropriate way.
Asia Beckman's Essay- Artificial Intelligence
When I was a little kid, I was always very curious when watching movies or television shows that featured robots, and self-driving cars. It made me think about how soon it would be in the future until these things became real and when you walk outside, all you see are humans being assisted by robots, or flying in their flying cars, or just doing nothing because all of the robots had taken over their tasks. I was always a little afraid from anticipating these events because usually, all of these movies and shows ended in all of the robots malfunctioning and brutally murdering everyone.
But then you do have to think, about the probability of artificial intelligence actually getting to that extent within your lifetime or even several centuries. I personally don’t think that we are even close to being able to create any kind of artificial intelligence anytime soon that would have the full capacity or number of synapses even to compare to the complexity of a human brain. In fact, a lot of artificial intelligence when tested has been proven to be much safer, and/or efficient than humans. Including, robots who serve and make food at fast food establishments, or the new self-driving cars which when tested, drove two years straight around the country and only got into one car accident which was the fault of another car.
Another concern that people have with the advancement of AI is that it takes away job opportunities for a lot of people and will most likely bring up the unemployment rate if robots are used to do jobs more efficiently. I mean, we’ve seen it in all the movies where people have lost their jobs to harder working robots who can do the job much better than we can. Of course that does sound extremely daunting and threatening to people, but I think that we are taking it the wrong way. If robots were intended to be put into a workforce to get a job done efficiently, that does not mean they have to completely run the operations. They can be helping “hands,” and allow us to do jobs must faster, therefore putting out more product without having to overwork our citizens. We cannot hinder scientific advancements merely because we are afraid of what will come out of them. We have to embrace them and be amazed and the things we could be capable of as a nation if artificial intelligence actually had a chance to flourish.Being an innovator means taking chances no matter what the outcome may be. Just like Victor with the monster. He had such a passion for figuring out how to create a life, and though the consequences were very horrible, he did feel a sense of accomplishment with finding something he loved and was interested in and being able to create something out of nothing.
Dana Pogar's Essay- GMO's
Genetically modified food is a topic that is often put under the bus since society lacks knowledge regarding genetically modified organisms or more commonly known as GMO's. We often wonder the purpose of GMO's but from a business standpoint scientist can potentially produce more food that contains significantly more nutrients, or are 100% resistant to crop insects. “Science can't answer questions of morality. The problem of deciding good and bad, right and wrong is outside the determination of science.” (www.cod.edu, 3), as of right now, scientist are aware of the many benefits GMO's provide to society, but we are not yet aware of the potential environmental dangers or health side effects that genetically modifying food could pose. Some of the benefits include mass food production; antibiotics infused food, insect repellent crops and newly invented fruits and vegetables. The disadvantage of genetically modified food is yet to be discovered, scientists have not yet found if GMO's are harmful to your health or earth's climate. Overall, GMO's are potentially harmful to the human race, and the government should begin to regulate scientist’s interactions with GMO’s because they could impact agricultural finances, the environment, and human health.
Anyone can be an innovator, but it’s the people who have no limitations and the strongest desires are those who pursue their dreams the most, and become innovators. Victor Frankenstein was a scientist that had goals because of his childhood, unfortunately his goal soon became into a nightmare, “My father was not scientific, and I was left to struggle with a child's blindness, added to a student's thirst for knowledge,” (Shelly, 29). Science is beginning to prove that genetically modified food will result in harmful genetic mutations in the reproduction process. For example, when cigarettes were first popular, doctors and scientist had no idea that "lighting up" caused lung cancer; as a result millions of people were and are continuously being diagnosed with lung cancer. This situation relates closely with Victor and his monster, because Victor had an image in his head of the animal he wanted to create, and after working his magic, he ended up with a “creature” that is terribly ugly and hideous.
The process by which scientists decide which food to genetically modify is the based upon the supply and demand chain and possible cures for diseases or prevention of illness. If an insect infects corn fields across the United States, scientist will conduct a process called gene splicing to change the DNA of corn to kill the infectious insect; these case studies are being performed all over the world in laboratories. Genetic modification is being performed in almost every food that we eat today including corn, soybeans, canola, and much more. Most often, foods that are genetically modified are resources that are in high demand and low supply. For the future of GMO's, scientist hope to provide antibiotics inside of food and hopefully provide better access to vaccinations to those who don’t have access to health care. The benefit to GMO’s is greatly controversial because of the impact that they could have on people in less developed countries. Unfortunately, genetic modification has gotten too advanced where there is no turning back, but only looking forward, “Science can't answer questions about value. For example, there is no scientific answer to the questions, "Which of these flowers is prettier?" or "which smells worse, a skunk or a skunk cabbage?" And of course, there's the more obvious example, "Which is more valuable, one ounce of gold or one ounce of steel?" Our culture places value on the element gold, but if what you need is something to build a skyscraper with, gold, a very soft metal, is pretty useless. So there's no way to scientifically determine value,” (www.cod.edu, 3). The statement provides readers with the question “Is there value in genetic modification?” Victor Frankenstein created his monster to change the world, but instead his discoveries changed his life for this worst, due to the fact that everyone he loves is now dead because of his hurtful words against his loving, gentle creature. All in all, genetically modified food is an art form that is an awaiting disaster in the health of men, women, children, and sadly infants. Scientists need to be regulated and monitored by governmental patrol; otherwise, humans will face the flaws of science with their own lives.
Public Service Announcement: Explanation
Audrie Widdison's Essay- GMO's
The definition of a genetically modified organism is when the genetic makeup or DNA of an organism has been changed in an unnatural way. In 1973 scientist discovered the ability to combine parts of an organism's DNA with the DNA of another organism. This process is known as recombinant DNA. In 1980, the first GMO patent was issued, but it wasn’t until 1994 that GMO’s entered grocery stores. There are several purposes and reasonings behind Genetically Modified Organisms. First GMO’s have increased durability so they can survive and grow and various different temperature and weather conditions. Their durability then allows more crops to survive, therefore creating a larger quantity of crops. Having a larger quantity of crops allows companies to distribute it to several different places, resulting in more money. There is a lot of controversy concerning genetically modified organisms and if they should be used or not.
Genetically Modified Organisms should have set limits that scientists and researchers can not pass. Malcom Walker, the Chairman and Chief Executive of Iceland Foods stated the following. "Millions of ordinary people are very worried about genetically modified foods and I am one of them....With genetically modified foods I believe we have reached the thin edge of the wedge, we are messing with the building blocks of life and it's scary.” The United States is continually discovering technological and scientific advances. With each new development comes more and different ethics and rules. GMO’s opened up a new area in science and how humans modify the DNA of other organisms for their benefit. Fifty to sixty years ago, the idea of GMO’s was only an idea. GMO’s are harmful to humans, because we are partaking of chemicals and substances that aren’t supposed to be eaten. If humans are messing around with the DNA and structure of other organisms, what’s going to stop scientists from messing around with DNA and the structure of humans in the future. If there are no limits in science, then people will cross the line between what is ethically okay, and what is not.
Although GMO’s are harmful for the body, there are some pros to them .Michael Specter stated the following, “By themselves, genetically engineered crops will not end hunger or improve health or bolster the economies of struggling countries. They won't save the sight of millions or fortify their bones. But they will certainly help.” According to Specter, GMO’s neither are helpful or unhelpful, but they do help our economy and population. Despite how GMO’s help our country economically, they still should not be used. If we continue to use and create them, then the limits will be pushed.
In the novel “Frankenstein’, the main character Victor says “My father was not scientific, and I was left to struggle with a child's blindness, added to a student's thirst for knowledge(2.9).” Science is a revolutionary and life altering subject in our world. And there are many like Victor who thirst for knowledge. Scientists have found cures for diseases, created rockets, created technology and shaped the world into what it is today. Science is essential in today’s society and the world would not be the same without it. Because science is so important and vital, there must be rules and limits set. Science should not be about messing around with the origins of life, it should be about making it better. Science needs to be ethical and just
The 21st century is beginning to thrive on technological advancements, advanced health care, and developing a better understanding of the human mind. Children are learning how to play games on tablets, where before when we were children, there was no such thing. Science, and combined intelligence is expanding to more dangerous fields, creating ecological footprints around the world. While doing a thorough investigation of stem cell research, artificial intelligence, and genetically modified organisms, our conclusions is expressed with a strong presence of limitations in the science industry in order to preserve the historic nature of Earth.
Embryonic stem cell research has been an ongoing controversy in the 21st century. Unfortunately, embryonic stem cells are found in dismembered human embryos, which relates to the persistent conflict with abortion laws.
There has been many attempts to find a cure for many diseases such as cancer, Parkinson's, and Alzheimer's through embryonic stem cell research. However, we believe that this is pushing scientific limits by destroying human life. Human life is meant to be preserved, not demolished.
Iain Torrance, a professor of Divinity in Aberdeen explains our point in EMBO reports by stating, “I believe we have an authority to intervene, so as heal and restore, but not to manipulate and destroy.” By researching embryonic stem cells, science is becoming manipulated and destroyed.
In addition, the article, Adult Stem Cell Research Basics by Minnesota citizens concerned for life, it is stated that, “It is only adult stem cell research that has had any success in yielding treatments… Adult stem cells can possess the flexibility of embryonic stem cells… There is no need to continue the life-destroying, unsuccessful, unethical, and unnecessary embryonic stem cell research.” Adult stem cells are stem cells found in tissues and organs, it is said that they work better than embryonic stem cells. Using embryonic stem cell research is an unnecessary process that continues to destroy life.
By placing limits on science, the embryonic stem cells will be preserved and have the chance to live.
Artificial intelligence is advancing much faster than we think. However, the only real concern with AI is that it is developing too fast and may be able to reach the capacity with enough complexity as a human being. There is also the instances in movies for examples where we see artificial intelligence beginning to take over the planet, and eventually obliterate all of human life.“In January, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg said we shouldn’t fear AI, saying it will do an amazing amount of good in the world. He’s half right; we’re poised to reap tremendous benefits from AI—from self-driving cars to the creation of new medicine—but there’s no guarantee that every instantiation of AI will be benign.” There are though, so many other things that artificial intelligence can benefit us with, but we need limits. We need to be able to set regulations on how these are created and how they are able to think and do their job without malfunctioning and causing us to deplete in scientific advancements instead.
“GMO’s opened up a new area in science and how humans modify the DNA of other organisms for their benefit.”The use and creation of GMO’s should definitely have limits. GMO’s take the DNA of one organism and put it into the DNA of another organism. The main purpose is to enhance and change the characteristics of the organism. This can allow organisms to survive and thrive in environments that it would not be able to without being genetically modified. “Science can't answer questions about value. For example, there is no scientific answer to the questions, "Which of these flowers is prettier?" or "which smells worse, a skunk or a skunk cabbage?" And of course, there's the more obvious example, "Which is more valuable, one ounce of gold or one ounce of steel?" Our culture places value on the element gold, but if what you need is something to build a skyscraper with, gold, a very soft metal, is pretty useless. So there's no way to scientifically determine value,” (www.cod.edu, 3). The statement provides readers with the question “Is there value in genetic modification?” The use and creation of Genetically modified organisms needs to have limits, because if there are no limits, then there is nothing to stop scientists from creating unethical discoveries.
"Adult Stem Cell Research (ASCR) Basics." Adult Stem Cell Research (ASCR). Minnesota
Citizens Concerned for Life, 2014. Web. 07 Mar. 2016.
"Americans OPPOSE Taxpayer Funding of Embryonic Stem Cell Research | Congressman Phil
Roe, Tennessee District 1." Americans OPPOSE Taxpayer Funding of Embryonic Stem Cell Research | Congressman Phil Roe, Tennessee District 1. Phil Roe, 1 Sept. 2010. Web. 3 06 March. 2016
"Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence." Association for the Advancement of
Artificial Intelligence. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Mar. 2016
Doherty, R. Dechter P. "Artificial Intelligence." Elsevier. An International Journal, n.d. Web. 15
"Everything You Know About Artificial Intelligence Is Wrong." Gizmodo. George Dvorsky, 8
Mar. 2016. Web. 15 Mar. 2016
"Genetically Modified Organisms." Nature.com. Nature Publishing Group, n.d. Web. 15 Mar.
"GMO Education - Institute for Responsible Technology." Institute for Responsible Technology.
"GMO Facts." The NonGMO Project RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Mar.
Lachmann, Peter. “Stem Cell Research—why Is It Regarded as a Threat? An Investigation of the
Economic and Ethical Arguments Made against Research with Human Embryonic Stem
Cells.” EMBO Reports 2.3 (2001): 165–168. PMC. Web. 7 Mar. 2016.
Specter, Michael. "Genetically Quotes." BrainyQuote. Xplore, n.d. Web. 15 Mar. 2016.
Stem Cells." Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection. Detroit: Gale, 2015. Opposing Viewpoints
in Context. Web. 5 Mar. 2016.
Wallker, Malcom. "Quotes from Scientists and on the Dangers of GE Food." Organic
Consumers. Organic Consumers Association (OCA), 2015. Web. 15 Mar. 2016.
"DP Biology Blog." : Stem Cell Blog- Yoonsik Park (Oct,5th, 2015). N.p., 1 Oct. 2015. Web. 14
Forbes. Forbes Magazine, n.d. Web. 16 Mar. 2016.
Lallanilla, By Marc. "GMOs: Facts About Genetically Modified Food." LiveScience. TechMedia
Network, 11 Jan. 2016. Web. 16 Mar. 2016.
" Living with Kennedy's Disease: The Stem Cell Research Controversy." Living with Kennedy's
Disease: The Stem Cell Research Controversy. N.p., 11 Nov. 2010. Web. 14 Mar. 2016.
"No Real Artificial Intelligence in the next 40 Years." Ubergizmo. N.p., 22 Nov. 2011. Web. 16
"Should GMOs Be Labeled?" EverydayHealth.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Mar. 2016.
"Take the GMO Quiz: How Much Do You Know? - It's MomSense." Its MomSense. N.p., 28
Oct. 2014. Web. 16 Mar. 2016. .
"Your Questions Answered on Artificial Intelligence." The Conversation. N.p., n.d. Web. 16
Zehra, Rosheena. "This Is How Artificial Intelligence Takes over the World."Igyaan.in. N.p., 23
Aug. 2014. Web. 16 Mar. 2016