The Opposing Viewpoint of Stem Cell Stem cell research explores the nature and growth capabilities of cells essential for ensuring replacement of cells in living organisms (Paddock, 2017). Such cells have an advantage of being manipulated to any type of cells as it is deemed necessary by the scientists based on scarcity or slow rejuvenation process of the natural cells. The general public has largely adopted a reserved approach to stem cell research and therapy despite the positive research and development showcased by leading scientists including; · Jun Takahashi: he explored the safety and applicability of stem cell therapy in primates in relations to the Parkinson’s disease, recording a major success between the interaction of human cells and animals (Sandoiu). Furthermore, no long-term negative effect was established from the treatment that saw full recovery of the primates. · Hai Nguyen, Aileen Anderson and colleagues: carried a similar exercise on injured mice to record tremendous success of the donor cells in a period ranging immediately after the induction process to at most one month (Society for Neuroscience. 2017). · Scientists from the Cedars-Sinai Heart Institute in Los Angeles CA: highlighted the need for stem therapy in replacing aging heart muscles using rats (Paddock, 2017). The induced cells were able to grow and multiply thus repair the heart muscles of the older rats to improve the general body functioning. Despite the breathtaking discoveries as tested and presented by these scientists, ethical concerns have prevailed to the dismay of an excited global scientists’ fraternity. The general public is cautious in its approach to stem cell therapy from various reasons ranging from the potential to cause cancer to how the media overrates the treatment process that still has critical gaps to full implementation (Begley, 2017). There are two major concerns that arise from the Cedars-Sinai Heart Institute research as reported by Paddock. The first concern as perceived by the layman defined as the general public is the fact the findings are based on animals other than human beings. This experiment was purely run on rodent tissue thus raising a legitimate query as to the consistency if replicated in humans. The second concern arises from Paddocks admission that the scientists proposed the need for further research to determine whether the findings are only valid when the donors are young (2017). Since the same article admits the fact modern day medicine has seen prolonged life with a possibility of the elderly to exceed the children population, such a dependency on young donors may endanger the human species in the long run. The excitement surrounding Stem Cell Research is magnified through mainstream media that often cares about moving volumes in sales rather than realistically highlight the caution or reservations pronounced by scientists. However, Sharon Begley is exemplary in her revelation of a high-risk gap in research that li ...

1. The Opposing Viewpoint of Stem Cell
Stem cell research explores the nature and growth capabilities
of cells essential for ensuring replacement of cells in living
organisms (Paddock, 2017). Such cells have an advantage of
being manipulated to any type of cells as it is deemed necessary
by the scientists based on scarcity or slow rejuvenation process
of the natural cells. The general public has largely adopted a
reserved approach to stem cell research and therapy despite the
positive research and development showcased by leading
scientists including;
· Jun Takahashi: he explored the safety and applicability of
stem cell therapy in primates in relations to the Parkinson’s
disease, recording a major success between the interaction of
human cells and animals (Sandoiu). Furthermore, no long-term
negative effect was established from the treatment that saw full
recovery of the primates.
· Hai Nguyen, Aileen Anderson and colleagues: carried a
similar exercise on injured mice to record tremendous success
of the donor cells in a period ranging immediately after the
induction process to at most one month (Society for
Neuroscience. 2017).
· Scientists from the Cedars-Sinai Heart Institute in Los
Angeles CA: highlighted the need for stem therapy in replacing
aging heart muscles using rats (Paddock, 2017). The induced
cells were able to grow and multiply thus repair the heart
muscles of the older rats to improve the general body
functioning.
Despite the breathtaking discoveries as tested and presented by
these scientists, ethical concerns have prevailed to the dismay
of an excited global scientists’ fraternity. The general public is
cautious in its approach to stem cell therapy from various
reasons ranging from the potential to cause cancer to how the
media overrates the treatment process that still has critical gaps
to full implementation (Begley, 2017). There are two major

2. concerns that arise from the Cedars-Sinai Heart Institute
research as reported by Paddock. The first concern as perceived
by the layman defined as the general public is the fact the
findings are based on animals other than human beings. This
experiment was purely run on rodent tissue thus raising a
legitimate query as to the consistency if replicated in humans.
The second concern arises from Paddocks admission that the
scientists proposed the need for further research to determine
whether the findings are only valid when the donors are young
(2017).
Since the same article admits the fact modern day medicine has
seen prolonged life with a possibility of the elderly to exceed
the children population, such a dependency on young donors
may endanger the human species in the long run.
The excitement surrounding Stem Cell Research is magnified
through mainstream media that often cares about moving
volumes in sales rather than realistically highlight the caution
or reservations pronounced by scientists. However, Sharon
Begley is exemplary in her revelation of a high-risk gap in
research that links Stem Cell Studies to development or
transmission of cancer (2017). Most research initiatives adopt a
subjective operation that intends to consider side-effects only
after the desired findings are confirmed a success.
That is the reason most research reports spend limited time on
challenges and often use the loophole of proposing ‘future
studies’, to cover the potential weaknesses of their current
work. Such is the case of the human embryonic stem cell lines
under the custody of the National Institute of Health as sampled
by Harvard Scientists (Begley, 2017). The samples are intended
for active therapy and also future research on application in
treating diseases including; Parkinson’s disease, macular
degeneration and diabetes. Some of the lines were found to
possess extreme cancer-causing mutations and based on the
multiplication process of Stem Cell therapy; they are a risk to
the patient.
It is futile to treat one disease only for the patient to develop

3. another serious disease in the long-run. If this causes concern in
the scientific world, one wonders to what extend the general
public should be scared of the same. Out of the 140 lines that
were randomly selected, 5 lines possessed the cancer-causing
mutation and had already been used for treatment (Begley,
2017). The report further seeks to assure stakeholders that
clinical trials implemented on an ‘unknown’ number of patients
revealed none had been exposed and suffered from cancer. This
is another worrying perspective because Begley states the
number of trials is ‘unknown’. How are the stakeholders
supposed to be assured by the declaration that none of the
patients experienced cancerous developments?
The idea that scientific proof through research findings is
essential in a rational society raises contentions on the
definition of proof. All the successful studies highlighted in the
previous paper and summarized at the beginning of this paper
are hinged on assumptions that are gladly relegated to the future
thus denying the findings a holistic validation. How do the
scientists expect the stakeholders to accept the same and
integrate the proposed findings into establishing informed
public policy? Stem Cell Therapy is still an evolving concept
that must not be implemented in its current stage of progress.
Stem Cell Research
Stem cells are cells that can grow and differentiate into other
types of cells. These cells have great potential for the treatment
of various disorders such as cancer or Parkinson’s disease
where the body cannot regenerate healthy cells to cure the
disease. Stem cell research has been going on for a long time,
and there have been great breakthroughs in the research. One
such breakthrough has been the use of stem cells in the
rejuvenation of neural cells of monkeys suffering from
Parkinson’s disease. Scientists have used induced pluripotent
cells to form some types of brain cells that have been damaged
by the disease. Parkinson’s disease is caused by the

4. degeneration of specific brain cells that control motor functions
and mood. Researchers have previously been able to restore
motor functions in rats that have shown characteristic symptoms
of Parkinson’s disease by using dopamine neurotransmitters
grown from human induced pluripotent cells. In spite of this,
there has not been any investigation on the long-term effects of
the use of this practice on the primates.
Researchers from California have demonstrated that injecting
stem cells taken from the hearts of newborn rats into older rats
improved the latter’s cardiovascular function and capacity.
A study done by Jun Takahashi was done to evaluate the safety
and applicability of the practice in primates. Human induced
pluripotent cells were used to generate dopamine neurons which
were transplanted into primates that had been induced to have
the Parkinson’s disease. The primates showed increasing
spontaneous increase in the motor cells after transplantation and
complete functioning in the midbrain. There was no long-term
effect of the cells on the primates after two years since no brain
tumors were observed (Sandoiu, 2017). This information is
critical as it has opened a gateway to the treatment of
Parkinson’s disease. The study shows that once more research is
done this could be a method to treat people suffering from the
disease and will help to relieve human suffering. The study has
unlocked one of the many possibilities of the use of stem cell
research and will, therefore, earn it more favor and support
from the public.
Human neural stem cells are derived via fluorescence-activated
cell sorting (FACS) from donated fetal brain tissue.
A study was done on mice by Hai Nguyen, Aileen Anderson and
colleagues found that mice receiving stem cells grown from
human brain tissue required the depletion of some types of
immune cells to improve the motor skills of the mice. The donor
cells survived equally when transplanted either immediately or
after a month after the injury. Their location however
continuously changed and this suggested that the cells were
populating the spinal cord at different times after the injury and

5. it affected the ability of the transplants to provide functional
recovery of the motor skills (Society for Neuroscience. 2017).
This means that the stem cells could be used in the treatment of
a destroyed spinal cord and restore motor skills to the patient.
This news is essential to the medical field. Many people have
been crippled after being in an accident that fractures their
spine. This news has provided a technique to aid such
individuals such that they can one day regain their ability to
walk. Continued research on the subject will provide an
applicable therapeutic practice that will help alleviate human
suffering and improve the lives of many people.
This news also serves to educate the public on the wide
applicability of the stem cells. The public is averse to stem cell
research, and this news will help to increase the acceptance of
the practice. The acceptance of the research by the public will
open more avenues for the research and will allow the
exploitation of the stem cells in the medical field. This will be
beneficial not just to the public but to the generations to come.
Another study has also brought light on the usefulness of the
stem cells in the regeneration of aging heart muscles. Scientists
from the Cedars-Sinai Heart Institute in Los Angeles CA
injected aged rats with specialized stem cells sourced from
newborns. The stem cells rejuvenated the cardiac muscles of the
older rats and improved heart function and exercise capacity of
the rats (Paddock, 2017). This information is essential to the
medical world. Heart disease has been proven to be among the
top killers of the American population. Aging, coupled with
other diseases such as diabetes and high blood pressure tends to
cause cardiovascular diseases which are the leading causes of
deaths among the people in this bracket. This research has
shown great promise in the medical field. The stem cells could
be used to help regenerate the damaged cardiac cells, and this
would eventually help to improve the cardiac health of these
individuals. This could save the lives of many of the American
citizens and people around the world. It will also increase
people’s faith in the stem cell research which will provide

6. increased possibilities to use the stem cells as cures for various
ailments that afflict humanity.