The Stem Cell Debate: Questions of Science & Progress

In a last-ditch effort to save the life of teenager Dave Stahl in 1975, Dr. John Kersey of the University of Minnesota performed the first successful bone marrow transplant to treat Burkitt’s lymphoma, a fatal form of cancer. Bone marrow contains stem cells, cells that are capable of developing into any of number of related cell types. Kersey had learned from his mentor, Dr. Robert Good, that these cells might be used to attack cancer. Kersey’s pioneering operation was successful and initiated three decades of research into the medical potential of stem cells—as well as three decades of controversy.

Photo courtesy of GryphonsCry.wordpress.com

On March 9th, 2009, President Obama issued an executive order rescinding the limits set by the past administration’s federal funding ban for embryonic stem cell research, making clear that the current administration supports such research. Once relegated to the depths of esoteric health journals, stem cells have made their way to the nation’s front pages because of the ethical nuances surrounding the subject.

Why is so much controversy present? Because although stem cells can be harvested from a variety of sources, including adult cells, or what are known as induced-pluripotent cells, researchers still believe the stem cells most effective in fighting human diseases come from human embryos. A number of groups, many from religious backgrounds, have vocally opposed stem cell research because they believe harvesting cells from human embryos is ethically wrong. Other groups have argued just as vocally that the benefits to human life from stem cell research are profound, and that such research is therefore a moral imperative.

What is your opinion regarding the use of stem cells in medicine?

Should the federal government publicly fund stem cell research, as it funds many other kinds of therapeutic research?

If you enjoyed this post, get updates by email subscription or RSS.

Share this post!

Popular Culture in the Classroom

Photo courtesy of WordandImage.wordpress.com

Recently I was discussing, with Ms. Square, the sometimes vexed question of media literacy. In what sense should individuals be literate today—more specifically in what mode or medium? Does centralizing focus on literacy in one approach diminish aptitude in another. For example, do web literate “youth” languish their ability to read, or even worse, to concentrate? There are a number of ongoing concerns about media literacy today. All of this perhaps implies the need for a new mode of comprehension. Ongoing variability in a very dynamic climate prods individuals to adapt to the shifts that are frequently occurring.

Is the ability to make effective use of new and emerging communication and information technologies essential to the realization of competent citizenship? By what standards?

Should media studies be seen as advanced vocationalism and nothing more?

View this document on Scribd

If you enjoyed this post, get updates by email subscription or RSS.

Share this post!

Political Polarization: Diametrically Opposed

The shift has been gradual, almost imperceptible when considered one incident at a time. However, over the past decade Americans seem to be gravitating more solidly to the left or the right. To the polarized, those still clinging to their centrist positions appear apathetic, or uninformed—or both.

Or perhaps I just imagine the divergence, the gaping chasm we’re creating as we’re torn asunder, the crumbling ledge where we teeter precariously. Maybe I just have too much time on my hands. Or maybe I just woke up and realized there are political implications to just about…well, everything. Has it always been this way?

Then looms the darker question: What next?

If you enjoyed this post, get updates by email subscription or RSS.

Share this post!