SRQ ESSAY on passage 1 by Huang Songpeng (4S1 06)

In this passage, basically the writer is trying to show his view against the embryo stem cell
research, by showing his opposite views on another professot’s points. I agree with the writer’s
point to a large extent, however, I still find that some of his opinions bias and I do not think there
are right.
First, the writer thinks that ‘Science is a systematic method for developing and testing hypotheses
about the physical world’, thus it do not ‘promise any cure’. For this point, I disagree to a large
extent. Science itself does not mean any solutions to the problem in real life, it is just the method
for us to know better about ourselves and the place we live. However, the purpose of developing
science and technology is to help to locate the actual problem in people’s life and provide possible
ways of cure. It is meaningless for us to develop science just for the pupose of tesing whether our
ideas are true without any applications. The purpose of space exploration is to find resources and
an alternative place for us to live, the purpose of genetic research is to know our body better and
try to cure the diseases caused by genetic problem, thus it is not right to say science do not
promise cure. Actually, in this case, adult stem cell research have shown extraordinary results and
promise. Spinal cord injury victims have testified before the U.S. Senate of their recoveries, heart
attack patients have regenerated hearts, a sickle cell anemia sufferer was cured by umbilical cord
blood and cancer patients now live symptom-free.
Second, the writer show his view that embryo stem cell research is not only a "ideological" thing,
it is more a moral issue. I agree with this point totally, because “the human embryo is a developing
form of human life that deserves respect”. As the writer says, human life begins at conception, that
fertilization produces a human being. Therefore the human embryo is just lile any other kind of
organism, the destruction of an embryo is the destruction of a human life. Many countries have
abolished abortion since it terminates a life, thus the embryo stem cell research should face the
same problem. Indeed, many religious and anti-abortion groups, have contended that embryos are
human beings with the same rights and thus are entitled to the same protections against abuse as
anyone else.
The third point raised by the writer is that medical applications of embryonic stem cells reach far
beyond any credible evidence. I agree with this point to a large extent. It is true that stem cell
therapy can treat spinal cord injury, Parkinson’s disease, stroke, cardiac damage, multiple
sclerosis, and so on, but the list is still limited. Complex diseases such as Alzheimer’s are unlikely
to be treated by any stem cell therapy. Similarly, autoimmune diseases like juvenile diabetes and
lupus are unlikely to benefit from simple addition of new cells. Another problem is that we do not
know the side effect of the treatment, because it is only applied to a few cases, and we can not
conclude its effectiveness just based these few cases. As the writer says，there are exaggerations
in claiming its applications and it is not only ‘scientifically irresponsible’ but also ‘eceptive’ and
‘cruel’ to the patients. One example of the similar case is that during the SARS time, the Chinese
hospitals in Beijing used hormone to cure the disease without telling the patients the possible side
effects. After so many years, many patients have been found femur necrosis and some of them
even can not walk any more. I am thinking if the similar problem will come to stem cell treatment.
In conclusion, the writer’s view on embryo stem cell research is quite reasonable. Although some
of his points are not fair, for he is the opponent of the research, most of his points are still able to
convinve me.