The essay agrees with the writer's disapproval of John Kerry's support for stem cell research. It argues that (1) science should not be used as a political tool or made into exaggerated claims, (2) human embryos deserve respect and rights as developing human life, and (3) embryonic stem cells are currently unsafe and unreliable for treatments. However, the essay also believes that limiting science is wrong and research should continue to find solutions, not end. It provides examples to support most points but makes assumptions about embryos and lacks justification for one argument.

1. Evaluation of Essay
Done by Ng Lihui, Darren Lum, Ng
Peng and BoShun

2. Thesis Statement
• Question: Based on the outcome of your online
discussion as well as the ideas that you have
gathered from a critical reading of the suggested
articles, write a response of at least 350 words
to the SRQ passage of your choice.
• I agree fully with the writer’s disapproval towards
John Kerry’s belief in stem cell research, but
believe that science should not be limited to
what the writer claims.

3. Argument 1
• I agree fully with the writer’s disapproval towards John Kerry’s
belief in stem cell research, but believe that science should not be
limited to what the writer claims.
• The writer shows his disapproval towards John Kerry’s belief in
stem cell research by claiming that science is not a political program
and should not be used as one, as seen from the quote “It does not
“promise” miracle cures based on scanty evidence. When scientists
make such assertions, they are acting as individuals, out of their
own personal faith and hopes, not as the voice of "science".”
implying Kerry’s personal misinterpretation of science and “To
make such exaggerated claims, at this stage of our knowledge, is
not only scientifically irresponsible – it is deceptive and cruel to
millions of patients and their families who hope desperately for
cures and have come to rely on the scientific community for
accurate information.”, implying Kerry’s use of science as a political
tool.

4. Argument 1 (Continued)
• I agree with this viewpoint fully. Science is a systemic study
that requires interpreting and proving a hypothesis so as to
unravel truths about our daily lives. Science cannot be
interpreted as a baseless claim of personal faith, which is
what John Kerry is accused of doing by the author, as this
would defeat the purpose of science, and bring more harm
than good if people were to accept these baseless claims.
• Although I agree with the author on the purpose of science,
I see it possible for science to be inculcated as a political
program. I take reference to Germany, where the
government has invested greatly on green technology.
While it is unjust to use science as a political tool to win
favor from the general public, we cannot completely rule
out science from politics altogether.

5. Argument 2
• Also, the writer shows disapproval towards John Kerry's beliefs in
stem cell research as humans have been misused in research. This
argument is entirely based on the fact that "the human embryo is a
developing form of human life that deserves respect", thus should
be entitled to human rights as well.
I agree entirely with the writer's views. The human embryo,
regardless of how motionless it is, would experience pain that is
similar to what humans face in the real world. The human embryo
do not deserve to be subjected to pain for the purpose of research,
even if that so called research is for the greater good, as they
should be entitled to be free from pain, and the liberty to be free
from pain. Putting the embryo into testing equates to abuse.

6. Argument 3
• Lastly, the writer shows his disapproval towards John Kerry’s belief in stem cell
research by stating that embryonic stem cells are unsuitable and usable. He
mentions that “there is scant scientific evidence that embryonic stem cells will
form normal tissues in a culture dish” and are “prone to uncontrollable growth
and tumor formation when placed in animals”, implying that these stem cells are
dangerous, and “claims of a safe and reliable treatment for any disease in humans
are premature at best.” Implies that there is little cure for such consequences.
• I agree with this viewpoint to a large extent. We do not understand much of these
embryonic stem cells, and there is still much ambiguity and danger in using them. I
refer to a case study in Israel in 2001, where a boy was injected embryonic stem
cells into his brain for hopes of curing his childhood disease. Four years later he
was diagnosed with a brain tumor, which grew out of these injected cells. As such,
the writer’s argument is valid.
• However, I would like to point out that even though there is not much success in
these areas of research, it should not signal the end of such research, but rather
should provide an opening for the pursuit of a solution. If science can raise
questions, it should be able to provide a solution as well.

7. Positive Points
• SRQ follows a structure and is organized
• Writer brought up a good point in his last paragraph “I
would like to point out that even though there is not
much success in these areas of research, it should not
signal the end of such research, but rather should
provide an opening for the pursuit of a solution. If
science can raise questions, it should be able to
provide a solution as well.”
– Shows understanding outside the context of the essay
• Real life examples are provided
– Case study in Israel in 2001

8. Negative Points
• Assumptions are made regarding the abuse of
embryo
• Presumes that embryo feels pain
• Failed to provide justification of author’s
argument for the 2nd point
• Conclusion is too brief