Limits Of Science

Connor, Kendall, Jared, Simon

Stem Cell Research

Jared Andresen


Brit. Lit.

16 March 2016

Stem Cell Research

Science is full of innovators that continue to push new limits; because of this there will always be a never-ending stem cell research program. Science should not have limits because if there were limits to science then the death rate would increase due to rising diseases. Science does not and should not have a limit to research. Scientists can continue to fight diseases such as cancer and Parkinson’s diseases because we learn more and more about the human body everyday. That scientist can be anybody, you can rise to become the next scientist to fight cancer and eventually cure all types of diseases. The human race is full of innovators because “what one man can do, another man can do”. This is the route to what setting new limits and constantly pushing one another to be better is possible.

The human body is composed of stem cells. Unlike other cells, stem cells have the capacity to regenerate themselves. Stem cells can also form to mostly every other cell in the body. For example, a stem cell can become skin cells, muscle cells, blood cells, and more. Scientists value stem cells so much because they are now being used to fight certain cancers. These cells are used for treatments in diabetes, Parkinson’s, bone diseases, and hearing loss. Stem cells are not only used as a source for new cell types but to generate new drugs as well. These new drugs are becoming more useful and more impactful due to constant research of stem cells. Even today doctors and scientists are learning about all the different jobs a stem cell can do. Due to our science department to continue to push new limits we will continue to learn how to use embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells to generate new and improved drugs as well as learn how to fight all sorts of diseases. People ask, “Why cant we use adult stem cells rather then embryonic stem cells for all this research?”(YouTube) The reason for the use of embryonic stem cells rather then adult stem cells is for the reason that embryonic stem cells will always be needed to study early human development. Adult stem cells can only be used with older “adults” and not in younger humans. These stem cells are still useful but because disseizes start when younger the embryonic stem cells are more useful.

In the book Frankenstein by Mary Shelly, there is an invention of a monster using multiple human parts and a spark to ignite the heart and essentially bring a person from the dead back alive. He created a monster that was 8 foot tall. He was a ugly creation, that ends up being very sensitive and smart. The monster has trouble fitting into his world around him and ends up feeling very left out. This creation would have never happened if Frankenstein had not had the innovative mind and the wanting to push new limits as a scientist to create the monster. There are multiple types of science but the monsters creator had an interest “Natural philosophy is the genius that has regulated my fate; I desire, therefore, in this narration, to state those facts which led to my predilection for that science.” (2.6) As we look at all departments of science, no matter what it is, all science has something in common. Every scientist, just like the monster’s creator, wanted to push the limits and invent new and exciting ways to function. In his case, he invented a monster that once was not living.

In both cases, real life and in the book, scientists are using methods to research how the human body functions. In the book the creator used research and human body parts and a spark to ignite the once dead heart. In real life scientist use stem cells to bring back something what was once dead. This is why stem cells and the way Frankenstein made the monster are so similar. In both cases there was a human that was being brought back to life. The use of stem cells is used to fight cancer and bring a person back to life. Without this constant demand of never ending research and the constant battle to reach a higher point in science, there would be no cures for cancer and other blood related diseases. If there wasn’t that push to bring back a life in the book Frankenstein there would be no monster that was ever created.

Works Cited

"A Stem Cell Story." YouTube. YouTube, n.d. Web. 07 Mar. 2016.

Shelley, Mary Wollstonecraft, and Diana Gibson. Frankenstein. Madrid, España: Edimat Libros, 2000. Print.

Big image

Cloning/ Problems With Creating Life

Connor W. McCord

Mrs. Harrison

Period 3 Brit. Lit.

7 March 2016

Creating Life

Cloning has been a part of human culture since the beginning of time with plants. Since the dawn of time people have have used stems, leaves, and shafts of plants instead of the actual plant seeds to grow desirable plants. In the early 1900’s, scientists began to actually create a true clone with an animal. Tests on rats and frogs were the first steps in the scientific breakthroughs later down the road. In the 1950’s a group scientists successfully created a clone frog with the identical genetic composition of an adult frog, yet failed to make it perfectly identical as the nuclei used for the experiment was too young and “To achieve true cloning, scientists needed to use a mature cell from an adult organism to produce an exact replica of that organism.("Cloning." Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection. Detroit: Gale, 2015. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 16 Feb. 2016.)” In Scotland 1997, a scientist actually achieved this with a female goat and went on to prove that the clone could perfectly mate and reproduce. Although science is fascinating and there could be many benefits to cloning humans, many problematic controversies and theories provide insight on the potential horrors cloning humans could create. Life is not to be created artificially. Artificial life would lead to many potential issues from overpopulation and overcrowding on earth, to pollution, to a new form of slavery, to potential immortality, and even to the psychological health of a clone and the safety of “real-original humans” and these are the reasons science should be limited.

The biggest issue to me is the uniqueness and individuality everyone has that is threatened by cloning. If clones were created then there would be multiple, identical humans on this earth and that is not natural. Wouldn’t an issue arise where one’s identity could be threatened? A clone would not have its own identity, and would not be able to experience growing up with its own uniqueness. It wouldn't have it’s own individuality and without individuality, uniqueness, and an identity, terrible psychological effects could occur within the mentality of a clone. I personally have fears about this because nothing “can stop the determined heart and resolved will of man." (Letter 3) With the determined nature of humanity, a clone without its own unique identity could either search for it’s own or create its own identity or try and destroy the original human and claims its identity. One scenario would not create a terrible situation but the other would create a real life horror movie. What is even scarier and gothic to me is that we do not know what scenario would occur with a created clone. I would personally fear that my clone would want to steal my life to be totally honest.

The controversy over a clones rights would become an issue too. Would a clone have the rights of a normal human being? Would the clone be classified as artificial life or real life? What would religious leaders think about life being created in a lab and not naturally, not through god, but in a test tube? All valid questions to me, but the largest issue is the potential use of clones as slaves for economic prosperity. I think they would have feelings and think the same as their original, in which case they would be able to plot against their slave lords and create uprisings, or they would simply develop a different way of thinking, their sociological behaviors could be altered creating an identical person to another, but a totally different character in essence. Which leads to potential issues with our already corrupt law enforcement system. What would you do if your clone creates a crime and then you are accused of it? and how would that be handled?

The point is, we simply should not even venture that far scientifically. The limits on science should be placed to protect people's individuality and uniqueness, as well as protect the welfare of our societies we have now. Creating copies of ones self for slaves, or for their organs is unethical. Creating artificial life and then destroying it is still tampering with the natural order of things. It's horrifying to create life unnaturally and it is even more horrifying to destroy a life.

Limits on Scientific Advancement?

Intent Is Everything

Stem cell Research

Argument Essay

Kendall Conn



Stem cell research is the scientific exploration of the uses and properties of human stem cells. Stem cells are a type of non-specialized cell that can be grown into any type of cell. They are most commonly gathered from fertilized human embryos, however in the past were gathered from aborted human fetuses. The purpose of stem cell research is generally either to synthesize human organs for transplant, or to study and develop cures for diseases and cancer. Therefore, the science surrounding stem cell research should not be limited.

The most common argument against stem cell research is that fertilized human embryos have morality (a “soul”). Many argue that life begins at the moment of conception, whether conception is through traditional means or not. Others argue that stem cell research could be used for morally ambiguous purposes down the line, such as human cloning or eugenics. It is often stated that stem cell research is “playing God” and “tampering with human life”. Those opposed to stem cell research also often state that to obtain stem cells from aborted fetuses, though this is no longer commonly practiced, is morally condemnable. Many consider stem cell research to be akin to Victor Frankenstein creating a “monster” from human bodies.

In support of stem cell research, human morality is subjective. The concept of life starting at conception, or embryos having “souls”, is something that can never be empirically proven. It is proven, however, that fertilized human embryos have no awareness, sense of pain, or consciousness. The idea that we should prevent stem cell research simply for its possible ambiguous purposes is also faulty, as by this logic we should suspend any science that could possibly be used incorrectly. This would include things like surgery. Additionally, the idea that stem cell research is “playing God” implies that any scientific advancements that alter humans should be outlawed as well. This would include prosthesis, glasses, hormone replacement therapy, organ replacement, and much more. To halt science that benefits humankind as a whole based on the moral beliefs of a small part of the population is faulty. Though the practice of obtaining stem cells from aborted fetuses is no longer commonplace, if fetuses are being aborted, it makes sense to use the stem cells with consent of the mother. To do otherwise would be wasteful.

Overall, the usage of human stem cells for research and development of cures should not be limited, especially by moral values of the few. Stem cell research benefits humankind as a whole.

Works Cited

Dunn, Kyla. "The Politics of Stem Cells." PBS. PBS, 01 Apr. 2005. Web. 16 Mar. 2016.

"Stem Cell Basics." : Introduction [Stem Cell Information]. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Mar. 2016.

"" StemCellResearchorg RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Mar. 2016.

Intent is Everything editorial

Connor McCord, Kendall Conn, Jared Andriesen


Brit Lit


Intent is Everything

A thought on whether scientific advancement should be limited or not has crossed the minds of a few Legend High School students. How far can we go scientifically in our research before we hit ethical dilemmas? Out of the three students that have worked to put this together, two studied stem cell research and the other, cloning. Three opinions were formulated that were put together to find a general consensus. The students agreed that science should not be limited as long as the intent of the research does not harm any human with functional cognitive processes, that can think for themselves, and is for the betterment of humankind.

Scientific advancement should not be be limited in terms of stem cell research. Stem cell research is just too valuable to science and breakthroughs in the medical fields. Possible ways to treat cancer and various diseases are being studied thanks to stem cell research. If it were to be limited then people would continue to die from horrifying diseases. Even if there were limits put on stem cell research, there are so many innovative minds out there that people are bound to illegally push past the limits and research anyway. If you put a cap on research then the cure for cancer that is trapped in someone's brain will never be able to be unlocked and the problem we face will never be solved.

Stem cell research has improved in the past couple of years because of the advancement in technology. From this point on our technology will only get better. Science will have to keep up with the technology and in return advance in the research of stem cells. Today we only know just a tad bit to what a stem cell can do. We know it can help cure cancer and other diseases, but a stem cell can become any cell in the human body. If science can take this farther we can learn how to regrow cells to fight and hopefully defeat more and more diseases. In the article written by Jared Andresen, he states that, “Stem cells are not only used as a source for new cell types but to generate new drugs as well. These new drugs are becoming more useful and more impactful due to constant research of stem cells. Even today doctors and scientists are learning about all the different jobs a stem cell can do.” This is telling us even today stem cells are still foreign to us and we have much more to learn about them. Due to this stem cell research can not have a cap on what we can research.

Cloning is a horrifying and scary subject for many reasons. It was agreed that there should be limitations placed on cloning humans only for safety reasons. Cloning research and development should be able to be studied in full on frogs and goats and rats or mice. Intent is everything, as long as a human is not harmed in the process and it is for the betterment of humanity, like for a search a cure to parkinson's or for cancer and more. I think that scientific research causes a lot of controversy and that if we do find a way to fully clone a human, what would the rights of the clone be? The questions to these kinds of things should not stop the research however. The answers can only be discovered once we get to the point in time that a human may actually be cloned, so why prevent it? there shouldn't, be limits. if there were limits, discovery would be skewed.