Projected Economic Implications of Federal Policy Decisions Regarding the Funding of Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research in the United States
Projected Economic Implications of Federal Policy Decisions Regarding the Funding of Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research in the United States
Word Count of Body: 2,369 Words
Word Count of Abstract: 148 Words
Abstract: There are three general positions that the federal government may assume concerning embryonic stem cell research: the first is where embryonic stem cell research is entirely disallowed and no federal funding is available, the second is where most forms of embryonic stem cell research are allowed but there is no funding provided, and the last scenario is where embryonic stem cell research is allowed and funded. This piece of writing explores the economic benefits and consequences the United States may face under each of these possible political positions. Evaluating this issue from a purely economical lens it appears that unrestricted and funded stem cell research places the United Sates in the best position to profit from the resulting innovations. This profit comes in terms of lowering the national deficit specifically by reducing medical expenses, creating biotech jobs, and by means of financial independence from foreign and private companies.
In America there is an intense debate over the ethical implications of embryonic stem cell research. Conservatives lobby to halt the research because these practices destroy life while liberals advocate for this research due to its potential to cure disease. What the debate is over are stem cells. Stem cells are found in multi-cellular organisms and have the ability to differentiate into a wide variety of specialized cell types and also to renew themselves through mitotic divisions (Claiborn, 2011). There are three types of stem cells, embryonic, adult, and cells from cord blood. Embryonic stem cells are totipotent, meaning that they can differentiate into all cell types within an organism. The other types of stem cells
Word Count of Body: 2,369 Words
Word Count of Abstract: 148 Words
Abstract: There are three general positions that the federal government may assume concerning embryonic stem cell research: the first is where embryonic stem cell research is entirely disallowed and no federal funding is available, the second is where most forms of embryonic stem cell research are allowed but there is no funding provided, and the last scenario is where embryonic stem cell research is allowed and funded. This piece of writing explores the economic benefits and consequences the United States may face under each of these possible political positions. Evaluating this issue from a purely economical lens it appears that unrestricted and funded stem cell research places the United Sates in the best position to profit from the resulting innovations. This profit comes in terms of lowering the national deficit specifically by reducing medical expenses, creating biotech jobs, and by means of financial independence from foreign and private companies.
In America there is an intense debate over the ethical implications of embryonic stem cell research. Conservatives lobby to halt the research because these practices destroy life while liberals advocate for this research due to its potential to cure disease. What the debate is over are stem cells. Stem cells are found in multi-cellular organisms and have the ability to differentiate into a wide variety of specialized cell types and also to renew themselves through mitotic divisions (Claiborn, 2011). There are three types of stem cells, embryonic, adult, and cells from cord blood. Embryonic stem cells are totipotent, meaning that they can differentiate into all cell types within an organism. The other types of stem cells
Citations: Bakalova, L., Buchholz, S., Jung, S., & Wong, Y. (2009). The Economics of Stem Cell Research. (Unpublished master 's thesis, Worcester Polytechnic Institute) Retrieved from . Claiborn, K. (2011). Federal Funding for Stem Cell Research: 15 years of Indecision. American Society for Clinical Investigation, 121(7), 2531. Fazzini, A., Burkey, B., Munoz, D., & Yang, R. (2007). The Economics of Embryonic Stem Cell Research in the United States. FOCUS, 37(1), 1,4,5,6. Goozner, M. (2006). Innovation in Biomedicine: Can Stem Cell Research Lead the Way to Affordability?. PLoS Medicine, 3(5), 126. Levine, A. (2004). Trends in the Geographic Distribution of Human Embryonic Stem-cell Research. Politics and the Life Sciences, 23(2), 40-45. Manton, K., Gu, X., Lowrimore, G., Ullian, A., & Tolley, H. (2009). NIH Funding Trajectories and Their Correlations with U.S. Health Dynamics from 1950 to 2004. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106(27), 10981–10986. Murugan, V. (2009). Embryonic Stem Cell Research: A Decade of Debate From Bush to Obama. Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, 83(3), 101-103. Russo E, (2005). Follow the Money—The Politics of Embryonic Stem Cell Research. PLoS Biol 3(7): e234. Tanne, J. (2005). Us Stem Cell Research Progresses Despite Limitations. British Medical Journal, 330(7506), 1467. Williams, D. (2009). National institutes of health releases new guidelines on human stem cell research. The American Society of Gene & Cell Therapy, 17(9), 1485-1486.