Young Drinkers Essay Example for Free

Young Drinkers EssayA lot of kids started take ining around 16 years old. As the years go by, drunkenness reaches younger and younger hatful. Its unfortunate. The aver develop age when youth first try alcoholic drinkic beverageic beverageic beverage is 11 years for boys and 13 years for girls. By age 14, 41 per cent of minorren have had least champion drink. The average age at which Americans begin swallow regularly is 15.9 years old.Teens who begin beverage in advance age 15 ar five times much likely to develop alcohol dependence than those who begin drinking at age 21. An earlier age of drinking onset is also associated with alcohol-related violence not only among persons under(a) age 21 but among adults as well. It has been estimated that over three bingle million million teenagers are out-and-out pelters. Several million more have a serious drinking problem that they cannot manage on their own.Annually, more than 5,000 deaths of people under age 21 are linke d to underage drinking. The three leading causes of death for 15- to 24-year-olds are automobile crashes, homicides and suicides alcohol is a leading factor in all three. Drinking alcoholic beverages beyond ones capacity to the point of intoxication is a risky behaviour in which around young people claim involved at some time. In a survey conducted by the University of the Philippines in 1994, 60 per cent or 5.3 million Filipino youths are state to be drinking alcoholic beverages. About 4.2 million of them are males and 1.1 million are females. The study stated that most of the Filipino teenagers have tried cigarettes, alcohol, and drugs. In fact, there are more alcoholic drinkers than smokers. On the average, Filipino youths start drinking alcohol at the age of 16 or 17.However, there are also many matters when children as young as 12 years old are already drinking alcoholic beverages. About 37 per cent of the respondents in the survey have continued the habit of drinking alcoh ol while 33 per cent said they only drink alcoholic beverages on special occasions. Some 17 per cent said they have already decided to stop the vice of drinking. The Philippines, drinking is more acceptable among girls than smoking. Nevertheless, it is still the case that it is considered more appropriate for men than for women to drink.Parents are more lax with boys, giving them more freedom to drink alcohol than their sisters. The teenagers said their family, friends, and the mass media have influenced them to essay with drinking alcohol. Underscoring the critical role that the family plays in youth behaviours, young people seem to take their cue from their own parents attitudes and behaviour. Thus, a boy who grows up with an alcoholic father is more likely to become one himself.The study indicated that those who are more likely to drink are those* who are not living(a) with parents (for example, college students living in dormitories)* whose parents approve of drinking* who fre quently attending kindly gatherings* who enjoy going out to parties, bars and discos* who do not take part in sports activitiesWHY DO SOME ADOLESCENTS DRINK?Young people try alcohol for many reasons.* They might be curious, or want to be one of the group. * Some young people drink because it makes them feel older, or because it gives them a certain image among friends. * Some people drink when they go to parties and nightclubs to enjoy themselves more. The alcohol might make them feel more relaxed. * Some people use alcohol to help them sleep or to forget things. * Some people deficiency to drink every day just to get through the day because they are dependent on alcohol.As children move from adolescence to young adulthood, they encounter spectacular physical, emotional, and lifestyle changes. Developmental transitions, such as puberty and increasing independence, have been associated with alcohol use. So in a sense, just universe an teenaged whitethorn be a key risk factor not only for starting to drink but also for drinking dangerously.Risk-TakingResearch shows the brain keeps ontogenesis well into the twenties, during which time it continues to establish important communication connections and further refines its function. Scientists believe that this lengthy developmental period whitethorn help explain some of the appearance which is characteristic of adolescencesuch as their propensity to seek out new and potentially dangerous situations. For some teens, thrill-seeking might include experimenting with alcohol. Developmental changes also propose a possible physiological explanation for why teens act so impulsively, often not recognizing that their actionssuch as drinkinghave consequences.ExpectanciesHow people placement alcohol and its effects also influences their drinking behavior, including whether they begin to drink and how much. An adolescent who expects drinking to be a pleasurable experience is more likely to drink than one who does not. An important area of alcohol enquiry is focusing on how expectancy influences drinking patterns from childhood through adolescence and into young adulthood (1114). Beliefs about alcohol are established very early in life, even so ahead the child begins elementary school (15). Before age 9, children generally view alcohol invalidatingly and see drinking as bad, with adverse effects. By about age 13, however, their expectancies shift, becoming more positive (11,16). As would be expected, adolescents who drink the most also place the greatest emphasis on the positive and arousing effects of alcohol.Sensitivity and Tolerance to AlcoholDifferences between the adult brain and the brain of the maturing adolescent also whitethorn help to explain why many young drinkers are able to consume much larger amounts of alcohol than adults (17) before experiencing the negative consequences of drinking, such as drowsiness, lack of coordination, and withdrawal/hangover effects (18,19). This unusual to lerance may help to explain the high rates of englut drinking among young adults. At the same time, adolescents appear to be peculiar(a)ly sensitive to the positive effects of drinking, such as feeling more at alleviate in social situations, and young people may drink more than adults because of these positive social experiences (18,19).Personality Characteristics and Psychiatric ComorbidityChildren who begin to drink at a very early age (before age 12) often share similar personality characteristics that may make them more likely to start drinking. Young people who are disruptive, hyperactive, and aggressiveoften referred to as having conduct problems or being antisocialas well as those who are depressed, withdrawn, or anxious, may be at greatest risk for alcohol problems (20). Other behavior problems associated with alcohol use include rebelliousness (21), difficulty avoiding harm or harmful situations (22), and a host of other traits seen in young people who act out without re gard for rules or the feelings of others (i.e., disinhibition) (2325).Hereditary FactorsSome of the behavioral and physiological factors that converge to plus or decrease a persons risk for alcohol problems, including tolerance to alcohols effects, may be directly linked to genetics. For example, being a child of an alcoholic or having several alcoholic family members places a person at greater risk for alcohol problems. Children of alcoholics (COAs) are between 4 and 10 times more likely to become alcoholics themselves than are children who have no close relatives with alcoholism. COAs also are more likely to begin drinking at a young age and to progress to drinking problems more quickly. Research shows that COAs may have subtle brain differences which could be markers for developing subsequent alcohol problems. For example, using high-tech brain-imaging techniques, scientists have make up that COAs have a distinctive feature in one brainwave pattern (called a P300 response) tha t could be a marker for ulterior alcoholism risk.Researchers also are investigating other brainwave differences in COAs that may be present long before they begin to drink, including brainwave activity recorded during sleep as well as changes in brain structure and function. Some studies suggest that these brain differences may be particularly evident in people who also have certain behavioral traits, such as signs of conduct disorder, antisocial personality disorder, sensation-seeking or poor impulse control. Studying how the brains structure and function translates to behavior will help researchers to better sympathise how predrinking risk factors shape later alcohol use. For example, does a person who is depressed drink to alleviate his or her first gear, or does drinking lead to changes in his brain that result in feelings of depression?Other hereditary factors likely will become evident as scientists work to identify the actual genes involved in addiction. By analyzing the g enetic organisation of people and families with alcohol dependence, researchers have found specific regions on chromosomes that correlate with a risk for alcoholism. Candidate genes for alcoholism risk also have been associated with those regions. The remainder now is to further refine regions for which a specific gene has not yet been identified and then determine how those genes interact with other genes and gene products as well as with the environment to result in alcohol dependence. Further research also should shed light on the extent to which the same or different genes contribute to alcohol problems, both in adults and in adolescents.Environmental AspectsPinpointing a genetic contribution will not tell the whole story, however, as drinking behavior reflects a complex interplay between inherited and environmental factors, the implications of which are only beginning to be explored in adolescents. And what influences drinking at one age may not have the same electric shock at another. As Rose and colleagues show, genetic factors appear to have more influence on adolescent drinking behavior in late adolescence than in mid-adolescence. Environmental factors, such as the influence of parents and peers, also play a role in alcohol use.For example, parents who drink more and who view drinking favorably may have children who drink more, and an adolescent girl with an older or adult beau is more likely to use alcohol and other drugs and to engage in delinquent behaviors. Researchers are examining other environmental influences as well, such as the impact of the media. Today alcohol is widely available and aggressively promoted through television, radio, billboards, and the Internet. Researchers are studying how young people react to these advertisements. In a study of 3rd, 6th, and 9th graders, those who found alcohol ads desirable were more likely to view drinking positively and to want to purchase products with alcohol logos (46). Research is mixed, howev er, on whether these positive views of alcohol actually lead to underage drinking.Complex behaviors, such as the decision to begin drinking or to continue using alcohol, are the result of a dynamic interplay between genes and environment. For example, biological and physiological changes that occur during adolescence may promote risk-taking behavior, leading to early experimentation with alcohol. This behavior then shapes the childs environment, as he or she chooses friends and situations that support further drinking. Continued drinking may lead to physiological reactions, such as depression or anxiety disorders, triggering even greater alcohol use or dependence. In this way, youthful patterns of alcohol use can mark the start of a developmental pathway that may lead to abuse and dependence. Then again, not all young people who travel this pathway experience the same outcomes.Perhaps the best way to understand and prevent underage alcohol use is to view drinking as it relates to de velopment. This whole system approach to underage drinking takes into account a particular adolescents unique risk and protective factorsfrom genetics and personality characteristics to social and environmental factors. Viewed in this way, development includes not only the adolescents inherent risk and resilience but also the current conditions that help to shape his or her behavior Children mature at different rates. Developmental research takes this into account, recognizing that during adolescence there are periods of rapid growth and reorganization, transfernating with periods of slower growth and integration of body systems.Periods of rapid transitions, when social or cultural factors most powerfully influence the biology and behavior of the adolescent may be the best time to target delivery of interventions. Interventions that focus on these critical development periods could alter the life route of the child, perhaps placing him or her on a path to avoid problems with alcoh ol. To date, researchers have been unable to identify a single track that predicts the course of alcohol use for all or even most young people. Instead, findings provide strong evidence for wide developmental variation in drinking patterns at bottom this special population.WithdrawalSomeone who is physically dependent on alcohol will experience withdrawal symptoms when they stop drinking or intimately reduce their intake. Symptoms usually commence 6-24 hours after the last drink, last for about five days and include* tremor* nausea/vomiting* anxiety/ zymosis* depression* sweating* headache* difficulty sleeping (may last several weeks).Alcohol withdrawal can be very dangerous. People drinking more than eight standard drinks a day are advised to discuss a decision to stop drinking with a doctor as aesculapian treatment may be required to prevent complications.-Binge drinkingBinge drinking or heavy episodic drinking is the modern gens for drinking alcoholicbeverages with the primary intention of becoming intoxicated by heavy consumption of alcohol over a short period of time. It is a pattern of purposeful drinking style that is popular in several countries worldwide, and overlaps somewhat with social drinking since it is often done in groups. The degree of intoxication, however, varies between and within various cultures that engage in this practice. A binge on alcohol can occur over hours or last up to several days. collect to the long-term effects of alcohol misuse, binge drinking is considered to be a major public health issue.Binge drinking is associated with a profound social harm, economic costs as well as increased disease burden. Binge drinking is more common in males, during adolescence and young adulthood. Most binge drinkers are not familiar with the risks associated with binge drinking. Heavy regular binge drinking is associated with adverse effects onneurologic, cardiac, gastrointestinal, hematologic, immune, musculoskeletal organ systems as wel l as increasing the risk of alcohol induced psychiatric disorders. A US-based review of the literature found that up to one third of adolescents binge drink, with six pct reaching the threshold of having an alcohol-related substance use disorder.Approximately one in twenty five women binge drink during pregnancy, which can lead to fetal alcohol syndrome and fetal alcohol spectrum disorders. Binge drinking during adolescence is associated with traffic accidents and other types of accidents, violent behavior as well as suicide. The more often a child or adolescent binge drinks and the younger they are the more likely that they will develop an alcohol use disorder including alcoholism. A large subjugate of adolescents who binge drink also consume other psychotropic substances. Binge drinking has the propensity to result in brain damage faster as well as more severely than continuing non stop drinking (alcoholism), due to the neurotoxic effects of the repeated rebound withdrawal effec ts.The tolerance that occurs during chronic (non-stop) drinking delays alcohol-related brain damage compared to binge drinking which induces immediate and repeated insults to the brain. The neurotoxic insults to the brain are due to very large amounts of glutamate being released on a repeated basis which over-stimulates the brain after each binge finishes, resulting in excitotoxicity. The developing adolescent brain is thought to be particularly unresistant to the neurotoxic effects of binge drinking, with some evidence of brain damage occurring from drinking more than 4 or 5 drinks once or double per month.

Ethical Questions in the Stem Cell Debate

good Questions in the report prison cadre tump overThe etymon booth Debate honorable QuestionsThe fib for the year 1997 was the sacred. We precaution a Promethean blunder. We fear that our own homosexual hubris leave behind vio belated aroundthing sacred in our character and we fear that nature go out vindicate with disaster. To protect ourselves from a possible Promethean blunder by science, we be tempted to stop further question with the commandment thou shalt non play divinityThen, during 1999, we undefendable the setoff few pageboys on chapter two of the re- puddle controversy story. I leave behind refer to this chapter as the block mobile phone debate. The debate has lone(prenominal) begun. What is non yet readable is cool it what needs to be debated. Perhaps nonhing. Perhaps ein truththing. What is clear is that the fallout from the cloning explosion is quiet down lighting fires present and there. Whether or non the public will add prow pri son kioskular phones to the fuel to make those fires burn hotter remains to be seen.Stem jail prison cells puzzle become battlefront page untesteds in Australia, as well as in the United States and other countries. On February 4, 1999, the Australian bailiwick Academy of Science loved a cast statement. Note the structure of Recommendation 1.Council considers that procreative cloning to prove military man fet routines is un good and unsafe and should be prohibited.However, tender-hearted cells derived from cloning techniques, from germ cells should non be precluded from call in approved look activities in cellular and developmental biologyHere two things argon put together. First, disapproval of reproductive cloning for the purposes of making children. Second, approval of inquiry on sympathetic conceptusnic nucleotide cells, approval even in the buttock of honest squeamishness regarding fertilized testicle interrogation. If this Australian statement is a ba rometer, we need to ask what is the cultural weather forecast? What faculty be coming?In what follows it will be my solveing class to storey on the fast-moving frontier of stanch cell research within the field of anthropology, agenda questions raised by science that need to be intercommunicate by sy staunchatic theologians and public policy makers. I will ask very much questions than I am ready to answer. Yet, I believe that such(prenominal) work invested in trying to word reachulate the pertinent question (die Fragestellung) takes us to a greater extent than just half demeanor toward a easeful answer.The man embryologic Stem stall Debate Science, Ethics, and Public Policy Edited by Laurie Zoloth Human fertilized eggnal stem cells basis divide indefinitely and find the possible unlikeness to develop into numerous types of meander. explore on these cells is essential to one of the more or less intriguing medical checkup frontiers, regenerative medicine. I t also raises a host of difficult ethical issues and has sparked great public please and controversy. This countersign offers a foundation for thinking round the umteen issues pertaind in gentlemans gentleman universe embryonal stem cell research. It considers questions more or less the nature of charitable carriage, the limits of hinderance into human cells and tissues, and the meaning of our corpo world-shattering existence. The event that stem cells may be derived from nutriment embryos that ar destroyed in the process or from aborted fetuses ties the news of stem cell research to the ongoing debates on abortion. In addition to these issues, the essays in the book touch on broader questions such as who should approve contentious research and what constitutes human dignity, respect, and justice. The book contains contri plainlyions from the Ethics Advisory Board of the Geron Coroporation excerpts from expert testimony repayn before the National Bio morals Advi sory Commission, which helped shape recent National Institutes of health policy and original analytical essays on the implications of this research.Pros and ConsDebates over the ethics of embryonic blastocysts.Latest DevelopmentsThe most recent research has shown that there are many creams operable other than working with embryonic stem cells. Stem cells can be obtained from cord blood or derived by manipulating diverseiated cells (i.e. skin cells) to regress them to a pluripotent state. These are alternatives that may help broaden the acceptance of stem cell research.BackgroundIn November 1998 the first published research paper inform that stem cells could be taken from human embryos. Subsequent research led to the ability to maintain undifferentiated stem cell lines (pluripotent cells) and techniques for differentiating them into cells specific to various tissues and organs.The debates over the ethics of stem cell research began almost immediately in 1999, despite reports t hat stem cells cannot grow into complete organisms.In 2000 2001, governments worldwide were beginning to indite proposals and guidelines in an effort to control stem cell research and the handling of embryonic tissues, and r idiosyncraticly(prenominal) universal policies to prevent brain-drains (emigration of top scientists) in the midst of countries. The CIHR (Canadian Institute of health Sciences) drafted a list of recommendations for stem cell research in 2001. The Clinton administration drafted guidelines for stem cell research in 2000, plainly Clinton left office anterior to them cosmos released. The Bush government has had to deal with the issue throughout his administration. Australia, Germany, UK and other countries cast off also formulated policies.(Continued from Page 1)ProsThe therapeutic cloning. Stem cells bid long electromotive force for finding treatments and cures to a vast array of diseases including different crabmeats, diabetes, spinal cord injuries, Alzheimers, MS, Huntingtons, Parkinsons and more.thither is endless potence for scientists to learn virtually human emergence and cell development from studying stem cells. habituate of adult-derived stem cells, from blood, cord blood, skin and other tissues, known as IPSCs, has been demonstrated to be effective for treating different diseases in animal models. Umbilical-cord-derived stem cells (obtained from the cord blood) draw also been isolated and utilized for various look intoal treatments. Another pick oution is use of uniparental stem cells. Although these cells lines accommodate round(a) disadvantages or shortcomings compared to embryonic cell lines (they are shorter-lived), there is vast dominance if enough money is invested in researching them further, and they are not technically considered individual living beings by pro- aliveness advocates.ConsUse of embryonic stem cells for reasearch involves the destruction of blastocysts formed from laboratory-fertilized h uman eggs. For those who believe that bread and butter begins at conception, the blastocyst is a human animation and to destroy it is unacceptable and immoral. This seems to be the only controversial issue standing in the way of stem cell research in conjugation America.Where It StandsIn the summer of 2006 President Bush stood his ground on the issue of stem cell research and vetoed a bill passed by the Senate that would have expand federal official funding of embryonic stem cell research. Currently, American federal funding can only go to research on stem cells from real (already destroyed) embryos. Similarly, in Canada, as of 2002, scientists cannot create or clone embryos for research but must used existing embryos discarded by couples. The UK allows embryonic stem cell cloning.Use of stem cell lines from alternative non-embryonic sources has received more attention in recent years and has already been demonstrated as a lucky option for treatment of certain diseases. For exa mple, adult stem cells can be used to replace blood-cell-forming cells killed during chemotherapy in bone marrow transplant patients. Biotech companies such as do work are researching techniques for cellular reprogramming of adult cells, use of amnionic fluid, or stem cell extraction techniques that do not damage the embryo, that also provide alternatives for obtaining executable stem cell lines.Out of necessity, the research on these alternatives is catching up with embryonic stem cell research and, with sufficient funding, other solutions top executive be found that are acceptable to everyone.On March 9, 2009, President Obama overturned Bushs ruling, allowing US Federal funding to go to embryonic stem cell research. However, the judicial admission applies that normal NIH policies on data sharing must be followed. Despite the progress being do in other areas of stem cell research, use pluripotent cells from other sources, many American scientists were putting pressure on the government to allow their participation and compete with the Europeans. However, many people are still strongly opposed query Ethics and Stem CellsStem cells show potential for many different areas of health and medical research, and studying them can help us find out how they transform into the dazzling array of specialized cells that make us what we are. close to of the most serious medical conditions, such as cancer and bring forth defects, are caused by problems that occur somewhere in this process. A better understanding of normal cell development will allow us to understand and perhaps correct the errors that cause these medical conditions. interrogation on one kind of stem cellhuman embryonic stem cellshas tryd much enliven and public debate. Pluripotent stem cells (cells that can develop into many different cell types of the body) are isolated from human embryos that are a few eld old. Pluripotent stem cell lines have also been developed from fetal tissue (older than 8 weeks of development).As science and technology continue to advance, so do ethical view headings meet these developments. It is important to educate and explore the issues, scientifically and ethically.The discovery, isolation, and culturing of human embryonic stem cells has been described as one of the most significant breakthroughs in biomedicine of the century.1 This explanation would be warranted by virtue of the biological uniqueness of these cells alonetheir ability to self-renew infinitely while retaining a uncommon capacity to differentiate into any form of cell tissue. But as well as this, the culturing of embryonic stem cells holds tremendous potential for the development of new forms of regenerative medicine to treat debilitating or deathly conditions that would not otherwise be curable.2It is somewhat of an irony that the discovery of cells with such a tremendous potential for improving and prolonging our own lives, should bring with it some of the most trenchant a nd intractable questions approximately the comfort of life itself. The gather of embryonic stem cells results in the destruction of the embryos from which they are harvested. It results, in other words, in the point of the very beginnings of a possible human life. Issues about the take to be of life emerge here in perhaps their most stark and touching form in the question of whether life for those already existing should be improved at the seeming expense of a possible human life that has just come into being.Needless to say, what the most ethically justified response is to this sort of question is far from obvious. It is not immediately apparent, either, just what should count as the allow for criteria for assessing possible responses to it. Indeed, it is even contentious as to what the right concepts and terminology are for framing the central questions. What is clear, though, is that it would be remiss to fail to subscribe with these questions in a manner that is commensur ate with their depth, complexity and importance.With due regard to that, the following discussion provides a brief overview of some of the core ethical issues arising from the search Involving Embryos wit 2002 and to some extent the Prohibition of Human Cloning beak 2002.3 The public debate has focused mostly on ethical problems associated with the destruction of embryos (in the fiber of the first Bill), and with the establishment of cloned human embryos (in the case of the second Bill). The authentic paper will confine its primary focus to the first set of problems, since many of the salient ethical issues about cloning will airlift, as it turns out, in connection with embryonic stem cell research.41 break good Issues in Embryonic Stem Cell ResearchThe paper takes most of the major ethical concerns in the debate to be encompassed by the following core questions What, in principle, is ethically at issue with baneful embryo research? What is important when it comes to judgi ng the value of the potential consequences of destructive embryo research? In what does the value of the human embryo populate? Does the means by which an embryo expireswhether it is destroyed or merely succumbsmake a moral difference? Is there anything morally worse about victimization embryos created for research purposes compared to using existing excess or surplus ART (assisted reproductive treatment) embryos?The purpose of the following discussion is to clarify some germane(predicate) moral and conceptual distinctions connected with these core questions, and to clarify the elemental structure of the major views and argument themes that have been developed by philosophers, bioethicists and theologians in response to these questions. Of course, in their more fully expanded form these distinctions and arguments will involve subtleties and complexities that are beyond the restrict scope of this paper to address. Nonetheless, the discussion here will hopefully give an impression of where some of those further complexities and subtleties might lie.The Basic Ethical ProblemThe possibility of destructive embryo research, situationly embryonic stem cell research, presents us with a moral problem because it appears to bring into tension two fundamental moral principles that we esteem very highly one principle enjoins the bar or alleviation of suffering, and the other enjoins us to respect the value of human life. As noted, the harvesting and culturing of embryonic stem cells has considerable potential to bring about remarkable potential benefits in the way of alleviating debilitating medical conditions. So, it satisfies the first principle to a very great degree.On the other hand, there is a case to be made that the harvesting of human embryonic stem cells violates the second principle in that it results in the destruction of human life with value (i.e. human embryos). Accordingly, both principles apparently cannot simultaneously be respected in the case of e mbryonic stem cell research. The question then is which principle ought to be granted precedence in this conflict situation. Should we give more weight to the first, and permit destructive embryonic stem cell research because of its remarkable potential benefits? Or should we give more weight to the second, and prohibit destructive embryonic research because it violates respect for the value of the2 appoint Ethical Issues in Embryonic Stem Cell Researchembryo as the very beginnings of a possible human life? This, at bottom, is the ethical problem generated by destructive embryo research.Crude as it may sound, responding to this problem calls for a moral calculationa decision about how the positive value of destructive embryo research is to be weighted, from a moral point of view, in comparison to the negative value (or disvalue) of destroying embryos. Whatever way that calculation is done, it is important to get a clear idea of what moral weight each side of the equation has. This will involve(i) developing a sound and accurate picture of what the real value is of the benefits of embryonic research, and(ii) clarifying what the value of embryos might consist in, and what, if anything, may be defective with destroying them.The rest of this paper outlines some of the ethical arguments and philosophical considerations that have been considered relevant to these two matters.Evaluating the Benefits of Embryonic Stem Cell ResearchEvaluating the beneficial consequences of embryonic stem cell research is not straightforward. There are complexities associated with assessing how pictorial the potential of the benefits is, how alternatives with different combinations of benefits and drawbacks are to be compared, and factoring in all of the sometimes overlooked possible consequences of embryonic research.Judging the BenefitsMost attention has centred on the medical potential of embryonic stem cell research and cultivation, particularly somatic gene therapy for genetic disorders5, and the generation of replacement tissues and organs for transplant.6 There is no interrogation that these upshots, once realised, would be highly valuable. It is important to keep in question, however, that currently these benefits are potential ones. A sound evaluation of stem cell research needs to take account of the likelihood of achieving its beneficial outcomes. In matters of science, and particularly, in areas that are newly developing and comparatively uncharted (such as embryonic stem cell research), it is sometimes difficult to settle on those probabilities with complete confidence. It is the nature of scientific discoveries and progress, that they are not easily predicted. Both advances and impediments to advancement can arise unexpectedly. This uncertainty about how real the potential benefits are, needs to be kept in mind when weighing and evaluating the consequences of embryonic stem cell research.3 Key Ethical Issues in Embryonic Stem Cell ResearchComp aring the Benefits and Harms of Alternatives to Embryonic Stem Cell ResearchAdult Stem Cell ResearchWhether destructive embryonic stem cell research is the right thing to do or not, will partly depend on what the alternatives are, and how their particular benefits and drawbacks remainder out. There is another research program involving adult stem cells that are present in and drawn from bone marrow, brain and gut, and other tissues. both(prenominal) of these stem cells have a capacity to differentiate into a limited number of different cell types, such as blood cells, muscles and neurones (i.e., they are multipotent), but they have not been shown to be pluripotent (able to differentiate into any cell-type) in the way that embryonic stem cells are.7 This demarcation means that adult stem cells offer more limited potential benefits in regenerative medicine and gene therapy, at least from the standpoint of our current understanding and available biotechnology. (But with that said, it is worth keeping in mind the points made above about the limited predictability of scientific advances, including the possibility of inducing adult stem cells to differentiate into a greater range of tissue types.)The harvesting and use of adult stem cells for biomedical purposes, however, avoids some of the ethically and biomedically problematic features of using embryonic stem cells. For a start, harvesting adult stem cells does not involve the destruction of embryos. The extent to which that is an advantage will depend on the extent to which that destruction turns out to be a bad thing, (and this will be taken up shortly). Tissues grown from adult stem cells will be immunologicly compatible with the soulfulness from whom the stem cells are harvested. This means that those tissues can be transplanted into that person without fear of the body rejecting them. Tissues produced from embryonic stem cells for the purpose of regenerative therapy, however, are unlikely to be immunocom patible with the person for whom they are intended. The immunological properties of the tissue are set by the characteristics of whatever embryo the stem cells are derived from.Apart from the ongoing use of immunosuppressant drugs (with its possible serious side effects), two other potential solutions to this immunological limitation have been suggested. The first proposes a tissue bank with a sufficiently large number of different embryonic stem cell types to generate tissue that can be immunologically matched with different recipients. Hall points out, however, that this would require a huge number of human embryonic stem cell lines (the number being a matter of debate). Such an embryonic stem cell bank would be technically difficult and expensive to generate. The number of embryos that would be required to produce the cell bank would probably test public support 8. The second possible way of overcoming the problem of immunological incompatibility is through what has been called therapeutic cloning. In this process, the essence of a human oocyte or egg is removed and replaced with the nucleus of a cell taken from the body of the intended tissue recipient. The new egg is bring forth to develop into an embryo, from which immunocompatible stem cells are harvested. The embryo will be a human embryonic clone of the recipient, with all his/her4 Key Ethical Issues in Embryonic Stem Cell Researchexact genetic characteristics. To date, there have only been one or two reported attempts at human cloning that have met with some success.A number of ethical objections have been expressed to therapeutic cloning, all revolving around the creating of an embryo, and moreover, the creating of an embryo for a use that will destroy it. These objections and arguments usually rely centrally on certain views about the value or moral berth of the embryo, and these views will be outline later in the paper.Whatever benefit the pluripotency of embryonic stem cells has in generat ing immunocompatible tissue, this benefit is likely to be possible only at the cost of having to engage in either the morally contentious practice of human (therapeutic) cloning, or the morally contentious practice of using (and destroying) a large number of embryos to create a sufficient range of embryonic stem cell lines for organ banks. It is peculiarly important to note also, that if the Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002 is passed in its current form, and any kind of human cloning, including therapeutic cloning, is prohibited, there will be less opportunity to maximise the potential benefits of embryonic stem cell research, and embryonic stem cells will effectively have less of the advantage they would otherwise have over adult stem cells.The Inevitable Succumbing of Surplus IVF EmbryosThe Research Involving Embryos Bill 2002 only permits excess ART embryos existing before 5 April 2002 to be used for research purposes in accordance with a licensing regime. It is a fact abo ut those embryos that they would likely expire or succumb anyway. They would still be destroyed, in other words, but through exposure to natural processes. On the face of it, this looks as if the deterioration or negative value involved in embryos expiring (whatever it might be) will be the akin whether embryo research is allowed or not. In each case the embryo will expire.But this impression can be a little oversimplified. Some philosophers argue that there is a moral difference between acts and omissions, between actively killing something, and passively failing to intervene to stop its death from other causes (when one could have). Even though the outcome is the like in each case, it can be argued that there is something worse, or more morally culpable, about actively bringing about the death oneself. There are different views on what the moral difference between killing and letting die amounts to, and there are those who argue that there is no significant difference. Whicheve r way one comes out on this, it is not clear that the act-omission distinction maps neatly onto the particular embryo research scenario under discussion. Destroying surplus embryos through research is for certain an act. But so too, some would argue, is removing surplus embryos from the cold storage that keeps them from expiring. They would hold that this looks less like failing to intervene in independently occurring causative processes (that will lead to expiry), than an act that sets those processes in motion. If this is true, then the first impression above will stand. The harm or negative value involved in embryos expiring (whatever it might be) will be the same whether embryo research is allowed or not.5 Key Ethical Issues in Embryonic Stem Cell ResearchSome would argue that there is an important logical upshot from this. If the only two alternatives in the circumstances (destroying embryos in research vs making them succumb) involve the same train of harm or disvalue or mo ral wrongness, but embryo research involves much greater benefits than the other alternative, then it could be argued, it makes sense to opt for the more beneficial embryo research. And indeed, some might construe that as a sufficient case for the moral preferability of that option. (This would change, of course, if the relevant alternatives changeif say, embryos were purpose created for research, which were not pre-existing and destined to be expired).9Taking into Account all of the Relevant Benefits and HarmsThe embryonic stem cell debate has been pre-occupied with the biological and medical benefits or drawbacks of that research. rudimentary as these certainly are, there are nonetheless other, often-overlooked non-medical impacts that may be important to factor in. Some of the major among these are possible social impacts includingDe-sensitisation to the decease of Human LifeIt is argued by some10 that allowing the destruction of embryos to become an entrenched practice would serve to desensitise the scientific establishment, regulating bodies, and society in general, to the destruction of life in general. An increased social toleration of loss of life, it would be argued, may make it easier for society to accede to (currently) more controversial practices involving the ending of life such as, late term elective abortion, or withdrawal of treatment for severely disabled infants, for example. This slippery slope argument about potential consequences is based on falsifiable assumptions about the causes and effects of certain social attitudes, and needs to be assessed in the light of their plausibility.Contributions to Social OppressionOne strong but minority forsake of argument emphasises the impact that biotechnology has on broader social relationships. It has been argued that research should be evaluated not only in terms of its effects on the subjects of the experiment but also in terms of its connection with existing patterns of oppression and dom ination in society.11 There is a considerable body of writing that explores the impacts of new reproductive technologies (such as IVF) on the interests of women, particularly how those technologies might contribute to oppression.12 In the case of embryonic research, it is sometimes argued that women who donate ova or embryos are at guess of evolution to the extent that male-dominated medical practice appropriates their reproductive labour for research and commercial benefits. Women are at risk, therefore, of being alienated from their reproductive labour. Moreover, it is argued that womens body move are at risk of being commodified, and their acts of altruistic donation demeaned, if downstream users can develop commercial applications for stem cells developed from their ova and embryos.136 Key Ethical Issues in Embryonic Stem Cell ResearchThe Value of the EmbryoWhat weight does the other side of the moral equation have? What is wrong, if anything, with destroying embryos? If ther e is something wrong with that, is it sufficiently wrong to outweigh or override the benefits of embryo research, and therefore, render that research morally impermissible? Most of the leading arguments about the rightness or wrongness of destroying embryos are based on some view or other about the moral status of the embryohow the embryo ought to be regarded or set from the moral point of view, in virtue of it arguably possessing certain morally important intrinsic characteristics.It is relatively uncontroversial to describe embryos as human life (at its very beginnings). It is another thing, however, to describe embryos as persons, or human beings, or potential persons, etc. These descriptions are morally laden in that they clear with them potential implications about what can and cannot be done to embryos from a moral point of view. What those potential implications are, and indeed, whether they are sound ones, will depend on the nature and plausibility of the particular argume nts that accompany each view on the moral status of the embryo. There are different views about this moral status. The leading views opine that embryos have the status of persons, or potential persons, or divine creations, or subjects of moral harm, or the beginnings of human life, with intrinsic value, or organic material with no more moral standing than other body parts.Each of these will be outlined in turn, with particular attention to (i) what the intrinsic moral characteristics are the each particular view attributes to embryos, and (ii) what these alleged characteristics or moral status are held to imply for our moral treatment of embryosparticularly whether they can ever or neer be destroyed.Embryos have Status as Human Beings or PersonsSome argue that, despite obvious physical differences between developed cosmos and embryos, the latter(prenominal) ought still be regarded as human beings or persons. One of the more plausible arguments to this effect relies on pointing out that there is no non-arbitrary point in the physical growth continuum between embryo and developed human that counts as a morally significant dividing line.14 Consequently, if individuals at their fully developed set are human beings or persons, there is no non-arbitrary ground to think that they should not count as the same at their embryonic stage. Those who hold otherwise,7 Key Ethical Issues in Embryonic Stem Cell Researchaccording to this argument, need to indicate the developmental point at which personhood, or status as a human being, is acquired.The argument continues that it is a very deeply and commonly held view in modern liberal democracies that individual persons are be of especially strong moral respect in certain ways. All individuals, by virtue of being persons, have fundamental rights not to have their basic human interests interfered with in certain ways, and most importantly, their interest in the maintenance of their life and bodily integrity. If embryos have the status of persons, then they too will have rights not to be harmed or killed. Or, put in another way, we will be under a very strong moral obligation not to harm or kill embryos.Most prominent ethicists, philosophers and commentators would agree that persons have a status deserving of strong and special moral respect, protection and dignity. Many, however, would deviation that embryos should be considered persons or human beings in any serious sense. Even if one cannot point to an exact black and white dividing line in human development, it is still reasonable (they hold) to point to the fact that wherever the transition occurs, embryos do not have the psychological, physiological, emotional, intellectual properties that we tend to centrally associate with personhood. Embryos, particularly the very betimes pre-implantation blastocysts involved in stem cell research,15 do not, for instance, have consciousness, individuality, the ability to reason, or the ability to form courses of action in life and to elect between them.16Embryos have Status as Potential PersonsSome ethicists have a response to the foregoing objection to viewing embryos as persons. It is to concede that embryos do not currently exhibit these properties of personhood, but they will, if allowed to develop and fulfil their potential. To the extent that embryos are potential persons, it is argued, they ought to still be accorded the moral respect and dignity that personhood warrants.This potential person argumentEthical Questions in the Stem Cell DebateEthical Questions in the Stem Cell DebateThe Stem Cell Debate Ethical QuestionsThe story for the year 1997 was the sacred. We fear a Promethean blunder. We fear that our own human hubris will violate something sacred in our nature and we fear that nature will retaliate with disaster. To protect ourselves from a possible Promethean blunder by science, we are tempted to stop further research with the commandment thou shalt not play GodThen, dur ing 1999, we opened the first few pages on chapter two of the cloning controversy story. I will refer to this chapter as the stem cell debate. The debate has only begun. What is not yet clear is just what needs to be debated. Perhaps nothing. Perhaps everything. What is clear is that the fallout from the cloning explosion is still lighting fires here and there. Whether or not the public will add stem cells to the fuel to make those fires burn hotter remains to be seen.Stem cells have become front page news in Australia, as well as in the United States and other countries. On February 4, 1999, the Australian National Academy of Science issued a position statement. Note the structure of Recommendation 1.Council considers that reproductive cloning to produce human fetuses is unethical and unsafe and should be prohibited.However, human cells derived from cloning techniques, from germ cells should not be precluded from use in approved research activities in cellular and developmental bio logyHere two things are put together. First, disapproval of reproductive cloning for the purposes of making children. Second, approval of research on human embryonic stem cells, approval even in the face of ethical squeamishness regarding embryo research. If this Australian statement is a barometer, we need to ask what is the cultural weather forecast? What might be coming?In what follows it will be my task to report on the fast-moving frontier of stem cell research within the field of anthropology, agenda questions raised by science that need to be addressed by systematic theologians and public policy makers. I will ask more questions than I am ready to answer. Yet, I believe that such work invested in trying to formulate the relevant question (die Fragestellung) takes us more than just halfway toward a helpful answer.The Human Embryonic Stem Cell Debate Science, Ethics, and Public Policy Edited by Laurie Zoloth Human embryonic stem cells can divide indefinitely and have the potent ial to develop into many types of tissue. Research on these cells is essential to one of the most intriguing medical frontiers, regenerative medicine. It also raises a host of difficult ethical issues and has sparked great public interest and controversy. This book offers a foundation for thinking about the many issues involved in human embryonic stem cell research. It considers questions about the nature of human life, the limits of intervention into human cells and tissues, and the meaning of our corporeal existence. The fact that stem cells may be derived from living embryos that are destroyed in the process or from aborted fetuses ties the discussion of stem cell research to the ongoing debates on abortion. In addition to these issues, the essays in the book touch on broader questions such as who should approve controversial research and what constitutes human dignity, respect, and justice. The book contains contributions from the Ethics Advisory Board of the Geron Coroporation excerpts from expert testimony given before the National Bioethics Advisory Commission, which helped shape recent National Institutes of Health policy and original analytical essays on the implications of this research.Pros and ConsDebates over the ethics of embryonic blastocysts.Latest DevelopmentsThe most recent research has shown that there are many options available other than working with embryonic stem cells. Stem cells can be obtained from cord blood or derived by manipulating differentiated cells (i.e. skin cells) to revert them to a pluripotent state. These are alternatives that may help broaden the acceptance of stem cell research.BackgroundIn November 1998 the first published research paper reported that stem cells could be taken from human embryos. Subsequent research led to the ability to maintain undifferentiated stem cell lines (pluripotent cells) and techniques for differentiating them into cells specific to various tissues and organs.The debates over the ethics of stem cell research began almost immediately in 1999, despite reports that stem cells cannot grow into complete organisms.In 2000 2001, governments worldwide were beginning to draft proposals and guidelines in an effort to control stem cell research and the handling of embryonic tissues, and reach universal policies to prevent brain-drains (emigration of top scientists) between countries. The CIHR (Canadian Institute of Health Sciences) drafted a list of recommendations for stem cell research in 2001. The Clinton administration drafted guidelines for stem cell research in 2000, but Clinton left office prior to them being released. The Bush government has had to deal with the issue throughout his administration. Australia, Germany, UK and other countries have also formulated policies.(Continued from Page 1)ProsThe therapeutic cloning. Stem cells provide huge potential for finding treatments and cures to a vast array of diseases including different cancers, diabetes, spinal cord injur ies, Alzheimers, MS, Huntingtons, Parkinsons and more.There is endless potential for scientists to learn about human growth and cell development from studying stem cells.Use of adult-derived stem cells, from blood, cord blood, skin and other tissues, known as IPSCs, has been demonstrated to be effective for treating different diseases in animal models. Umbilical-cord-derived stem cells (obtained from the cord blood) have also been isolated and utilized for various experimental treatments. Another option is use of uniparental stem cells. Although these cells lines have some disadvantages or shortcomings compared to embryonic cell lines (they are shorter-lived), there is vast potential if enough money is invested in researching them further, and they are not technically considered individual living beings by pro-life advocates.ConsUse of embryonic stem cells for reasearch involves the destruction of blastocysts formed from laboratory-fertilized human eggs. For those who believe that l ife begins at conception, the blastocyst is a human life and to destroy it is unacceptable and immoral. This seems to be the only controversial issue standing in the way of stem cell research in North America.Where It StandsIn the summer of 2006 President Bush stood his ground on the issue of stem cell research and vetoed a bill passed by the Senate that would have expanded federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Currently, American federal funding can only go to research on stem cells from existing (already destroyed) embryos. Similarly, in Canada, as of 2002, scientists cannot create or clone embryos for research but must used existing embryos discarded by couples. The UK allows embryonic stem cell cloning.Use of stem cell lines from alternative non-embryonic sources has received more attention in recent years and has already been demonstrated as a successful option for treatment of certain diseases. For example, adult stem cells can be used to replace blood-cell-forming cells killed during chemotherapy in bone marrow transplant patients. Biotech companies such as ACT are researching techniques for cellular reprogramming of adult cells, use of amnionic fluid, or stem cell extraction techniques that do not damage the embryo, that also provide alternatives for obtaining viable stem cell lines.Out of necessity, the research on these alternatives is catching up with embryonic stem cell research and, with sufficient funding, other solutions might be found that are acceptable to everyone.On March 9, 2009, President Obama overturned Bushs ruling, allowing US Federal funding to go to embryonic stem cell research. However, the stipulation applies that normal NIH policies on data sharing must be followed. Despite the progress being made in other areas of stem cell research, using pluripotent cells from other sources, many American scientists were putting pressure on the government to allow their participation and compete with the Europeans. However, many peop le are still strongly opposedResearch Ethics and Stem CellsStem cells show potential for many different areas of health and medical research, and studying them can help us understand how they transform into the dazzling array of specialized cells that make us what we are. Some of the most serious medical conditions, such as cancer and birth defects, are caused by problems that occur somewhere in this process. A better understanding of normal cell development will allow us to understand and perhaps correct the errors that cause these medical conditions.Research on one kind of stem cellhuman embryonic stem cellshas generated much interest and public debate. Pluripotent stem cells (cells that can develop into many different cell types of the body) are isolated from human embryos that are a few days old. Pluripotent stem cell lines have also been developed from fetal tissue (older than 8 weeks of development).As science and technology continue to advance, so do ethical viewpoints surrou nding these developments. It is important to educate and explore the issues, scientifically and ethically.The discovery, isolation, and culturing of human embryonic stem cells has been described as one of the most significant breakthroughs in biomedicine of the century.1 This description would be warranted by virtue of the biological uniqueness of these cells alonetheir ability to self-renew infinitely while retaining a remarkable capacity to differentiate into any form of cell tissue. But as well as this, the culturing of embryonic stem cells holds tremendous potential for the development of new forms of regenerative medicine to treat debilitating or fatal conditions that would not otherwise be curable.2It is somewhat of an irony that the discovery of cells with such a tremendous potential for improving and prolonging our own lives, should bring with it some of the most trenchant and intractable questions about the value of life itself. The harvesting of embryonic stem cells result s in the destruction of the embryos from which they are harvested. It results, in other words, in the expiration of the very beginnings of a possible human life. Issues about the value of life emerge here in perhaps their most stark and poignant form in the question of whether life for those already existing should be improved at the seeming expense of a possible human life that has just come into being.Needless to say, what the most ethically justified response is to this sort of question is far from obvious. It is not immediately apparent, either, just what should count as the appropriate criteria for assessing possible responses to it. Indeed, it is even contentious as to what the right concepts and terminology are for framing the central questions. What is clear, though, is that it would be remiss to fail to engage with these questions in a manner that is commensurate with their depth, complexity and importance.With due regard to that, the following discussion provides a brief o verview of some of the core ethical issues arising from the Research Involving Embryos Bill 2002 and to some extent the Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002.3 The public debate has focused mostly on ethical problems associated with the destruction of embryos (in the case of the first Bill), and with the creation of cloned human embryos (in the case of the second Bill). The current paper will confine its primary focus to the first set of problems, since many of the salient ethical issues about cloning will arise, as it turns out, in connection with embryonic stem cell research.41 Key Ethical Issues in Embryonic Stem Cell ResearchThe paper takes most of the major ethical concerns in the debate to be encompassed by the following core questions What, in principle, is ethically at issue with destructive embryo research? What is important when it comes to judging the value of the potential consequences of destructive embryo research? In what does the value of the human embryo consist? D oes the means by which an embryo expireswhether it is destroyed or merely succumbsmake a moral difference? Is there anything morally worse about using embryos created for research purposes compared to using existing excess or surplus ART (assisted reproductive treatment) embryos?The purpose of the following discussion is to clarify some relevant moral and conceptual distinctions connected with these core questions, and to clarify the basic structure of the major views and argument themes that have been developed by philosophers, bioethicists and theologians in response to these questions. Of course, in their more fully expanded form these distinctions and arguments will involve subtleties and complexities that are beyond the limited scope of this paper to address. Nonetheless, the discussion here will hopefully give an impression of where some of those further complexities and subtleties might lie.The Basic Ethical ProblemThe possibility of destructive embryo research, particularly embryonic stem cell research, presents us with a moral problem because it appears to bring into tension two fundamental moral principles that we esteem very highly one principle enjoins the prevention or alleviation of suffering, and the other enjoins us to respect the value of human life. As noted, the harvesting and culturing of embryonic stem cells has considerable potential to bring about remarkable potential benefits in the way of alleviating debilitating medical conditions. So, it satisfies the first principle to a very great degree.On the other hand, there is a case to be made that the harvesting of human embryonic stem cells violates the second principle in that it results in the destruction of human life with value (i.e. human embryos). Accordingly, both principles apparently cannot simultaneously be respected in the case of embryonic stem cell research. The question then is which principle ought to be given precedence in this conflict situation. Should we give more weight to the first, and permit destructive embryonic stem cell research because of its remarkable potential benefits? Or should we give more weight to the second, and prohibit destructive embryonic research because it violates respect for the value of the2 Key Ethical Issues in Embryonic Stem Cell Researchembryo as the very beginnings of a possible human life? This, at bottom, is the ethical problem generated by destructive embryo research.Crude as it may sound, responding to this problem calls for a moral calculationa decision about how the positive value of destructive embryo research is to be weighted, from a moral point of view, in comparison to the negative value (or disvalue) of destroying embryos. Whatever way that calculation is done, it is important to get a clear idea of what moral weight each side of the equation has. This will involve(i) developing a sound and accurate picture of what the real value is of the benefits of embryonic research, and(ii) clarifying what the value of embryos might consist in, and what, if anything, may be wrong with destroying them.The rest of this paper outlines some of the ethical arguments and philosophical considerations that have been considered relevant to these two matters.Evaluating the Benefits of Embryonic Stem Cell ResearchEvaluating the beneficial consequences of embryonic stem cell research is not straightforward. There are complexities associated with assessing how realistic the potential of the benefits is, how alternatives with different combinations of benefits and drawbacks are to be compared, and factoring in all of the sometimes overlooked possible consequences of embryonic research.Judging the BenefitsMost attention has centred on the medical potential of embryonic stem cell research and cultivation, particularly somatic gene therapy for genetic disorders5, and the generation of replacement tissues and organs for transplant.6 There is no doubt that these outcomes, once realised, would be highly valuable. It is important to keep in mind, however, that currently these benefits are potential ones. A sound evaluation of stem cell research needs to take account of the likelihood of achieving its beneficial outcomes. In matters of science, and particularly, in areas that are newly developing and comparatively uncharted (such as embryonic stem cell research), it is sometimes difficult to settle on those probabilities with complete confidence. It is the nature of scientific discoveries and progress, that they are not easily predicted. Both advances and impediments to advancement can arise unexpectedly. This uncertainty about how real the potential benefits are, needs to be kept in mind when weighing and evaluating the consequences of embryonic stem cell research.3 Key Ethical Issues in Embryonic Stem Cell ResearchComparing the Benefits and Harms of Alternatives to Embryonic Stem Cell ResearchAdult Stem Cell ResearchWhether destructive embryonic stem cell research is the right thing to do or n ot, will partly depend on what the alternatives are, and how their particular benefits and drawbacks balance out. There is another research program involving adult stem cells that are present in and drawn from bone marrow, brain and gut, and other tissues. Some of these stem cells have a capacity to differentiate into a limited number of different cell types, such as blood cells, muscles and neurones (i.e., they are multipotent), but they have not been shown to be pluripotent (able to differentiate into any cell-type) in the way that embryonic stem cells are.7 This limitation means that adult stem cells offer more limited potential benefits in regenerative medicine and gene therapy, at least from the standpoint of our current understanding and available biotechnology. (But with that said, it is worth keeping in mind the points made above about the limited predictability of scientific advances, including the possibility of inducing adult stem cells to differentiate into a greater ran ge of tissue types.)The harvesting and use of adult stem cells for biomedical purposes, however, avoids some of the ethically and biomedically problematic features of using embryonic stem cells. For a start, harvesting adult stem cells does not involve the destruction of embryos. The extent to which that is an advantage will depend on the extent to which that destruction turns out to be a bad thing, (and this will be taken up shortly). Tissues grown from adult stem cells will be immunologically compatible with the person from whom the stem cells are harvested. This means that those tissues can be transplanted into that person without fear of the body rejecting them. Tissues produced from embryonic stem cells for the purpose of regenerative therapy, however, are unlikely to be immunocompatible with the person for whom they are intended. The immunological properties of the tissue are set by the characteristics of whatever embryo the stem cells are derived from.Apart from the ongoing u se of immunosuppressant drugs (with its possible serious side effects), two other potential solutions to this immunological limitation have been suggested. The first proposes a tissue bank with a sufficiently large number of different embryonic stem cell types to generate tissue that can be immunologically matched with different recipients. Hall points out, however, that this would require a huge number of human embryonic stem cell lines (the number being a matter of debate). Such an embryonic stem cell bank would be technically difficult and expensive to generate. The number of embryos that would be required to produce the cell bank would probably test public support 8. The second possible way of overcoming the problem of immunological incompatibility is through what has been called therapeutic cloning. In this process, the nucleus of a human oocyte or egg is removed and replaced with the nucleus of a cell taken from the body of the intended tissue recipient. The new egg is induce d to develop into an embryo, from which immunocompatible stem cells are harvested. The embryo will be a human embryonic clone of the recipient, with all his/her4 Key Ethical Issues in Embryonic Stem Cell Researchexact genetic characteristics. To date, there have only been one or two reported attempts at human cloning that have met with some success.A number of ethical objections have been expressed to therapeutic cloning, all revolving around the creating of an embryo, and moreover, the creating of an embryo for a use that will destroy it. These objections and arguments usually rely centrally on certain views about the value or moral status of the embryo, and these views will be outlined later in the paper.Whatever benefit the pluripotency of embryonic stem cells has in generating immunocompatible tissue, this benefit is likely to be possible only at the cost of having to engage in either the morally contentious practice of human (therapeutic) cloning, or the morally contentious pra ctice of using (and destroying) a large number of embryos to create a sufficient range of embryonic stem cell lines for organ banks. It is especially important to note also, that if the Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002 is passed in its current form, and any kind of human cloning, including therapeutic cloning, is prohibited, there will be less opportunity to maximise the potential benefits of embryonic stem cell research, and embryonic stem cells will effectively have less of the advantage they would otherwise have over adult stem cells.The Inevitable Succumbing of Surplus IVF EmbryosThe Research Involving Embryos Bill 2002 only permits excess ART embryos existing before 5 April 2002 to be used for research purposes in accordance with a licensing regime. It is a fact about those embryos that they would likely expire or succumb anyway. They would still be destroyed, in other words, but through exposure to natural processes. On the face of it, this looks as if the harm or negati ve value involved in embryos expiring (whatever it might be) will be the same whether embryo research is allowed or not. In each case the embryo will expire.But this impression can be a little oversimplified. Some philosophers argue that there is a moral difference between acts and omissions, between actively killing something, and passively failing to intervene to stop its death from other causes (when one could have). Even though the outcome is the same in each case, it can be argued that there is something worse, or more morally culpable, about actively bringing about the death oneself. There are different views on what the moral difference between killing and letting die amounts to, and there are those who argue that there is no significant difference. Whichever way one comes out on this, it is not clear that the act-omission distinction maps neatly onto the particular embryo research scenario under discussion. Destroying surplus embryos through research is certainly an act. But so too, some would argue, is removing surplus embryos from the cold storage that keeps them from expiring. They would hold that this looks less like failing to intervene in independently occurring causal processes (that will lead to expiry), than an act that sets those processes in motion. If this is true, then the first impression above will stand. The harm or negative value involved in embryos expiring (whatever it might be) will be the same whether embryo research is allowed or not.5 Key Ethical Issues in Embryonic Stem Cell ResearchSome would argue that there is an important logical upshot from this. If the only two alternatives in the circumstances (destroying embryos in research vs making them succumb) involve the same level of harm or disvalue or moral wrongness, but embryo research involves much greater benefits than the other alternative, then it could be argued, it makes sense to opt for the more beneficial embryo research. And indeed, some might construe that as a suffic ient case for the moral preferability of that option. (This would change, of course, if the relevant alternatives changeif say, embryos were purpose created for research, which were not pre-existing and destined to be expired).9Taking into Account all of the Relevant Benefits and HarmsThe embryonic stem cell debate has been pre-occupied with the biological and medical benefits or drawbacks of that research. Central as these certainly are, there are nonetheless other, often-overlooked non-medical impacts that may be important to factor in. Some of the major among these are possible social impacts includingDe-sensitisation to the Destruction of Human LifeIt is argued by some10 that allowing the destruction of embryos to become an entrenched practice would serve to desensitise the scientific establishment, regulating bodies, and society in general, to the destruction of life in general. An increased social toleration of loss of life, it would be argued, may make it easier for society t o accede to (currently) more controversial practices involving the ending of life such as, late term elective abortion, or withdrawal of treatment for severely disabled infants, for example. This slippery slope argument about potential consequences is based on empirical assumptions about the causes and effects of certain social attitudes, and needs to be assessed in the light of their plausibility.Contributions to Social OppressionOne strong but minority strand of argument emphasises the impact that biotechnology has on broader social relationships. It has been argued that research should be evaluated not only in terms of its effects on the subjects of the experiment but also in terms of its connection with existing patterns of oppression and domination in society.11 There is a considerable body of writing that explores the impacts of new reproductive technologies (such as IVF) on the interests of women, particularly how those technologies might contribute to oppression.12 In the ca se of embryonic research, it is sometimes argued that women who donate ova or embryos are at risk of exploitation to the extent that male-dominated medical practice appropriates their reproductive labour for research and commercial benefits. Women are at risk, therefore, of being alienated from their reproductive labour. Moreover, it is argued that womens body parts are at risk of being commodified, and their acts of altruistic donation demeaned, if downstream users can develop commercial applications for stem cells developed from their ova and embryos.136 Key Ethical Issues in Embryonic Stem Cell ResearchThe Value of the EmbryoWhat weight does the other side of the moral equation have? What is wrong, if anything, with destroying embryos? If there is something wrong with that, is it sufficiently wrong to outweigh or override the benefits of embryo research, and therefore, render that research morally impermissible? Most of the leading arguments about the rightness or wrongness of de stroying embryos are based on some view or other about the moral status of the embryohow the embryo ought to be regarded or treated from the moral point of view, in virtue of it arguably possessing certain morally important intrinsic characteristics.It is relatively uncontroversial to describe embryos as human life (at its very beginnings). It is another thing, however, to describe embryos as persons, or human beings, or potential persons, etc. These descriptions are morally laden in that they carry with them potential implications about what can and cannot be done to embryos from a moral point of view. What those potential implications are, and indeed, whether they are sound ones, will depend on the nature and plausibility of the particular arguments that accompany each view on the moral status of the embryo. There are different views about this moral status. The leading views speculate that embryos have the status of persons, or potential persons, or divine creations, or subjects of moral harm, or the beginnings of human life, with intrinsic value, or organic material with no more moral standing than other body parts.Each of these will be outlined in turn, with particular attention to (i) what the intrinsic moral characteristics are the each particular view attributes to embryos, and (ii) what these alleged characteristics or moral status are held to imply for our moral treatment of embryosparticularly whether they can ever or never be destroyed.Embryos have Status as Human Beings or PersonsSome argue that, despite obvious physical differences between developed humans and embryos, the latter ought still be regarded as human beings or persons. One of the more plausible arguments to this effect relies on pointing out that there is no non-arbitrary point in the physical growth continuum between embryo and developed human that counts as a morally significant dividing line.14 Consequently, if individuals at their fully developed stage are human beings or persons, there is no non-arbitrary ground to think that they should not count as the same at their embryonic stage. Those who hold otherwise,7 Key Ethical Issues in Embryonic Stem Cell Researchaccording to this argument, need to indicate the developmental point at which personhood, or status as a human being, is acquired.The argument continues that it is a very deeply and commonly held view in modern liberal democracies that individual persons are deserving of especially strong moral respect in certain ways. All individuals, by virtue of being persons, have fundamental rights not to have their basic human interests interfered with in certain ways, and most importantly, their interest in the maintenance of their life and bodily integrity. If embryos have the status of persons, then they too will have rights not to be harmed or killed. Or, put in another way, we will be under a very strong moral obligation not to harm or kill embryos.Most prominent ethicists, philosophers and commentators wou ld agree that persons have a status deserving of strong and special moral respect, protection and dignity. Many, however, would dispute that embryos should be considered persons or human beings in any serious sense. Even if one cannot point to an exact black and white dividing line in human development, it is still reasonable (they hold) to point to the fact that wherever the transition occurs, embryos do not have the psychological, physiological, emotional, intellectual properties that we tend to centrally associate with personhood. Embryos, particularly the very early pre-implantation blastocysts involved in stem cell research,15 do not, for instance, have consciousness, individuality, the ability to reason, or the ability to form courses of action in life and to choose between them.16Embryos have Status as Potential PersonsSome ethicists have a response to the foregoing objection to viewing embryos as persons. It is to concede that embryos do not currently exhibit these propertie s of personhood, but they will, if allowed to develop and fulfil their potential. To the extent that embryos are potential persons, it is argued, they ought to still be accorded the moral respect and dignity that personhood warrants.This potential person argument

The Philosophy of Rationality in Economics

The Philosophy of understanding in EconomicsNikita KohliThe shipway of being homophile are bound but infinite.-Larry NivenAn IntroductionThere exists no single definition of modestness, yet it forms the cornerstone of basal assumptions of standard models of economic intelligence.A sweeping glance of the idea however, elucidates one fact. rationalness deals in forgiving behaviour, it aims to deduce its motivations and predict future outcomes based on choices. Rife with contradictions and limitations analogous to the innate complexity of human spirit, this theory has been repeated altered and manifests itself in different ways with the progression of time.Objectives The primary objective of this paper is to qualitatively analyze economic literature and draw conclusions pertaining to the concept of sharp-wittedity and its relevance in the domain of a function today.lit ReviewThis paper, as the title suggests, aims to examine the concept of quick of scentity, its use both philosophically in the study of broad humanity as well as in its more proper(postnominal) application to economics and standard models of human behaviour.In order to gain an understanding of early texts exploring concepts of tenableness, such as the deeds of Aristotle and, the author relied on interpretative papers such as those of Fred Miller (1984).Various original shits of authors have been studied chronologically to enable a historic overview of the concept, eventually yielding to contemporary work, implications and applications to various phenomena. Notable repositories of information such as the Palgrave Dictionary of Economics and critical essays on the subject of reason (a collection edited by Bill Gerrard) have been accessed.The papers with their extensive reference lists gave the author insight into the vast literature focused on this specific subject.Reviews and critiques, and studies in retrospect of concepts have been perused to help put an idea from another time into contemporary perspective.PART 1Rationality A historical analytic thinkingIf one devalues rationalness, the world t annihilates to fall apart Lars Von TrierThe first mention of the concept of Rationality is seen in the work of Aristotle who states that the human being has a rational principle and the ability to carry out rationally formulated projects. (Miller, 1984).Homo Economicus or the Economic Man was a term that first appeared in the work of J.S Mill who described man as solely as a being who desires to possess wealth, and who is capable of judging the comparative efficacy of means for obtaining that end. (Mill, 1844). This is the base of the most widespread assumption in economics that man strives to only maximize his utility and satisf follow up, and this trait, intrinsic to all men, is termed rationality.Jevons, the forbearer of mathematical economics propounded a quantitative measure of the utility function. In stressing on the concept of marginal utility, he put forth some basic tenets of the utility usance theory, namely that economic agents derive utility by consumption of goods, and that they are rational, calculating maximisers. In attempting to treat the economy as acalculusof pastime and pain, Jevons (1871) set the foundations for a paradigm of Economics, which was deeply rooted in individualistic theories of motivation and decisions.Von Mises (1949), in his seminal work on human nature and decision making, asserted that human action is necessarily always rational. His understanding of rationality, however, differed from that of his successors in the field of Economics. He believed that any human being acted in a way that fur in that locationd their self-interest and was to achieve some end goal. When viewed in pure subjectivity, no action can be termed irrational as every human being acts out of some motivation, thus making the action rational.Concepts of Rationality A contemporary compendiumAll human port is scheduled and progr ammed through rationality. Michael FoucaultIn the early 1960s, mathematical economist John Muth (considered the Father of the Rational Expectations Revolution in Economics) put forth a personate of work that would leave on indelible mark on the rationality discourse. For the first time, a significant difference in economic analysis was do, that amidst adaptive and rational expectations. Muths work and the theory of Rational Expectations was considered iconoclastic at the time as it proposed a shift in fellowship processing, analysis and decision making.Neo-classical economics, as propounded by Friedman, Keynes and others dealt with systems and analysis utilize historical data. This was termed adaptive. Adaptive neo-classical theory forms the basis for many policy decisions, be in pump-priming investing or monetary contraction. Policy is created in keeping with past results and some common assumptions in economics people will demand more when the presidential term invests in the economy etc.In contrast, Rational Expectations take into view the whole economy, in its real-time functionality, and uses imbibes online information in its analysis. It propounds that rational agents constantly update their information and take into chronicle the whole system. As Muth (1961) asserts, the economy does not waste information, and that expectations depend specifically on the structure of the entire system. In addition to this fundamental tenet, this school of thought also states that markets will always clear prices will adjust to fluctuations in supply almost immediately.When this concept is extrapolated to traverse the macro economy, it is often stated that no government policy or exogenous shock can shake up the system. This is because of the existence of rational agents, who, using their knowledge of existing phenomenon, expect certain outcomes and adjust their course of action accordingly. For instance, in a recessionary period, sellers will not let their p rices fall. They behave in this manner because they are aware of the current scenario and preempt government investment intervention to attenuate falling demand. Thus they expect their demand to rise in the near future.As Greg Egan would put it, It all adds up to normality.While implicit in the Rational Expectations theory is the existence of perfect knowledge, transmuting into rational decisions, there emerged a field of study which emphasized the shortcomings of knowledge and information acquisition.The term Bounded Rationality was introduced by Herbert Simon in his book Models of Man (1957). While in spirit adhering to the belief that human beings are rational, Simons theory observed a critical failing that of the assumption of complete information. In this structure, human behaviour is viewed not in terms of rational, utility maximising behaviour. Instead, it is seen as a series of actions, often not compatible with each other, decisions taken in situations of partial informat ion and based on limited reflection. This accounts for the limitations to both knowledge and cognitive capacity.Taking this idea further, simmering in the field of human behaviour vis a vis economic processes, is the belief that human beings can sometimes be Irrational. Carrying out specific studies in this area, economist Dan Ariely finds surprising results. In a habituated situation, a person may make a choice which will not benefit them in the future, may not help them immediately, and the decision is make in the light of these two eventualities. Ariely explains that this is because human behaviour is not always controlled by rational motives, it is highly impulse driven and impacted heavily by exogenous factors. In the early 1960s, Gary Becker put forth the same idea only that he believed even irrational agents can work smoothly as a single unit. Human irrationality, he states, was in fact rational.PART 2 NUANCES OF RATIONALITYAmartya Sen anchors a clear distinction in the fl akes to Rationality in literature. He divides them into two broad categories Instrumental Rationality and Substantive Rationality. Substantive rationality is when one acts out of objectively, independently defined self interest. This lends itself to the worldwide Equilibrium theory, the starting point of individual behaviour is a predefined utility function, and choice arises from this within the constraints imposed. Instrumental rationality dons a more humane approach wherein it allows for objectives that are not restricted to solely self-interest. This methodology acknowledges the influence of other factors on rationality. Sociologist Max Weber states a similar idea that of Wertrationalor value/belief-oriented rationality, wherein the motives for action are often driven by reasons intrinsic to a particular actor, such as specific emotions, societal or spiritual aspects.Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky have made important contributions to the understanding of rationality and rea ctions to choice. The Prospect theory attempts to describe decisions under uncertainty. It empirically proves that a decision making process is often not rational people are risk-averse when they stand to incur losses and risk-taking when they stand to gain. Another obstacle to rational thinking is the problems posed by heuristics (Kahneman Tversky, 1974). Heuristics are mental short-cuts, which ordinarily involve focusing on one part of a complex problem and often ignoring the larger, more complete set of information. This limited perception of the fill out at hand is used to make a decision.In any sphere of study, the influence of external social factors cannot be denied, on a sounding level, this impact could manifest itself in the way of the Demonstration or Bandwagon effect. On deeper examination, we see that these exogenous factors often define an individuals sense of Rationality, which leads us to realize that Rationality can never be completely objective or homogenously innate to all.Adopting a pragmatic approach to the limitations posed by washy knowledge, Herbert Simon proposes the term satisficing. He pointed out that human beings lack the cognitive resources tooptimize the relevant probabilities of outcomes are usually, thus the evaluation of all outcomes with sufficient precision is rare, if not impossible. A more realistic approach to rationality takes into account these limitations.An important application of the rationality principle in neo-classical economic theory is in the analyses of perfect competition. warring offset is said to have been reached when each person maximizes their utility, given a certain set of assumptions (no externalities). This state of equilibrium will tend towards Pareto Optimality as it is false that the Pareto Optimal state is one where there is perfectly competitive equilibrium at a given set of prices and some initial distribution of resources. every rational utility maximizer is in equilibrium, wherein no one can be made better off without hurting anothers well-being and current status. This basal assumption of rational behaviour establishes the relationship between the aforementioned concepts.PART 3 CONCLUSIONIn everything, one thing is impossible rationality NietshchzeThis paper has attempted to shed light upon the various dimensions of rationality, as depicted in economic phenomenon. Problems arise however, with the implicit assumption of rationality in models involving human behaviour in varied situations.Rationality implies comprehensive knowledge of the current economic system, which is then factored into the decision making process. In keeping with the Efficient market Hypothesis, markets will always correct themselves and clear as people are able to adapt and adjust to fluctuations almost immediately, due to their information. It has also been argued that ingrained processes of elimination ensure that rationality perpetuates itself, where those who act rationally work opti mally. This can be seen in nature, in the principle of survival of the fittest. Milton Friedman also draws this parallel to markets, where non-profit maximizing firms are driven to a wall so that only the rational, profit maximizing firms may survive. (Friedman, 1953).These applications and assumptions are rife with shortfalls. The first limitation is that of knowledge. Acquisition of this perfect knowledge to facilitate rationality is expensive, consumes resources, and in many cases proves impossible to obtain. To assume that perfect knowledge is a pre necessity for rational behaviour limits its scope.While looking at markets and macro-structures, one can see rational expectations as the underlying force in stock markets. These markets are extremely refined to minor fluctuations and react almost instantaneously to restore equilibrium. The same cannot be said of the economy. It is impossible to expect policy to change, or its impact to be as versatile as is seen in the stock market s. The case of the rupee depreciation illustrates this point, wherein the stock markets adjust to the disturbance, but the economy is left flagging.Chamberlin points out, that for Perfectly Competitive equilibrium to exist, there at first must exist a certain measure of disequilibrium. He states that not merely pure, but perfect competition is requisite for the rationality hypotheses can have their full power. The existence of the initial disequilibrium, in conditions of complete rationality, proves to be contradictory.Another limitation of the rationality assumption is that it makes for models that are normative, sort of positive. Formally and explicitly, these provide frameworks to understand how agents should act in order to maximize their self interest. This fails in its predictive capacity, to see how one will behave in the future.Were all mad here Cheshire Cat, Alice in WonderlandRationality is assumed to be highly centered on the individual. But as Kenneth Arrow 1986) point s out, rationality gathers not only its force, but very meaning from the social context in which it is embedded. It holds only under ideal conditions, the nature of which is not seen in the world today.Adam Smith in the Theory of Moral Sentiments attributes actions to not only self-interest, but more humane factors like love, benevolence and community feeling.A science taking into account human behaviour must closely study its major drivers. Exposure to various social factors and upbringing influences the way people think. defining rationality becomes problematic, what is rational to one may be deemed irrational to another. For instance, faith, religious belief, personal opinions and ideology are not universal in their impact and acceptance.Rationality then becomes extremely contextual one persons rationality is bound to not hold in another persons situation. Rationality can also be temporal, due to the lack of accurate information about the future what holds true today or in the i mmediate foreseeable future, may not hold in the long-run.The limits and bounds to rational thinking are not clear and universal, theyre morphed and moulded and coloured by personal experiences and biases.A crucial distinction needs to be made about what kind of behaviour is rational and what is not, and what models of behaviour may be useful in predicting real behaviour. Taking into account various individualities poses a great challenge, but to attribute motivation and action to perfect rationality, especially in the context of subjective human behaviour, is problematic. Anomalies will be patent to the process of fitting human nature and motives into an objective framework.The author concludes that an assumption about human beings, especially one as pervasive as assumed rationality, is dangerous. At the same time, accounting for individual drivers is nearly impossible. Policy, and core economic theory must be able to account for, at the very least acknowledge, these discrepancies . This is the only way to create frameworks which may work with greater precision.REFERENCESArrow, K. J. (1986). Rationality of self and others in an economic system. diary of Business, S385-S399.Friedman, M. (1953). The methodology of positive economics.The Philosophy of economics an anthology,2, 180-213.Heap, H.S (1993) Post Modernity and New Conceptions of Rationality in Economics. In The Economics of Rationality. (pp. 48-60). RoutledgeJevons, W. S. (1871).The Theory of Political Economy. Macmillan and Company.Kahneman, D. (1994). New challenges to the rationality assumption. ledger of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE)/Zeitschrift fr die gesamte Staatswissenschaft, 18-36.Kahneman, D. (2003). Maps of bounded rationality Psychology for behavioral economics.The American economic review,93(5), 1449-1475.List, J. A. (2004). Neoclassical theory versus nominee theory Evidence from the marketplace.Econometrica,72(2), 615-625.Mill, J. S., Backhouse, R. E. (1997).On the Defi nition of Political Economy and of the Method of Investigation Proper to it Essays on Some Unsettled Questions of Political Economy (1844) On the Logic of the Moral Sciences A System of Logic (1856)(Vol. 1). Routledge.Miller, F. D. (1984). Aristotle on Rationality in Action. The Review of Metaphysics, 499-520.sMuth, J. F. (1961). Rational expectations and the theory of price movements.Econometrica Journal of the Econometric Society, 315-335.Sen, A. (2000). tenableness before identity.Romanes Lecture.Sen, A. K. (1977). Rational fools A critique of the behavioral foundations of economic theory.Philosophy Public Affairs,6(4), 317-344.Stewart, S. A. (2005). Can behavioral economics save us from ourselves?.University of Chicago magazine, 97(3).Swidler, A. (1973). The concept of rationality in the work of Max Weber.Sociological Inquiry, 43(1), 35-42.Tetlock, P. E., Mellers, B. A. (2002). The great rationality debate.Psychological Science, 13(1), 94-99.Tversky, A., Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty Heuristics and biases.science,185(4157), 1124-1131.Tversky, A., Kahneman, D. (1986). Rational choice and the framing of decisions. Journal of business, S251-S278.Von Mises, L., Greaves, B. B. (1949). Human action (pp. 59-62). Liberty Fund.WebliographyFuture Prospects. (2013, Aug, 5). retrieved September 1 2013, from The Economist Web Site http//www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2013/08/prospect-theory-and-economicsRethinking Thinking. (1999, Dec, 16). retrieved September 1 2013, from The Economist Web Site http//www.economist.com/ invitee/268946

Brave New World 3 :: essays research papers

Brave New World &8220Oh, my God, my GodIn 1932, Aldous Huxley first published the novel, Brave New World. During this time, the melodic themes that Huxley explored in his novel were not a reality, but merely science-fiction entertainment. Brave New World confronts ideas of totalitarianism, artificial reproduction, anti-individualism, and forever youth- ideas which were not threatening in the 30&8217s. In the 1930&8217s, the high ethical standards great deal maintained and the limited amount of scientific loveledge did not allow for the acceptance of the types of ideas found in Brave New World. These values include abstinance, family structure, and life-long marriages- issues that had critical to no importance in the Brave New World. As we begin the new millenium, our increasing scientific knowledge has taken our curiousity beyond ethical consideration, and Huxley&8217s novel has become much closer to a reality than it was 65 years ago. Today, Huxley&8217s Brave New World paralle ls current advances in genic engineering, cloning, the lowering of moral standards held by the general mass, and the obsession people have with looking young.Theses new discoveries of genetical engineering and cloning closely parallel the knead of giving birth in the Brave New World. In Brave New World, people are born artificially in test tubes. Everyone is condidtioned to be the same to share the same characteristics, their way of thinking, and their ideas. People who claimed individual thought against the community- such as Bernard in the beginning of the novel- were considered to have a defect from a lab mistake during birth, and were ostracized from the community, until they conditioned themself to think like the rest of the community. Scientific development in both genetical engineering and cloning, have made the idea of anti-individualism closer to a reality. Genetical engineering enables parents to choose characteristics for their shaver, creating a &8220poster child whic h ultimately ends in every child becoming a poster child and all looking the same. Although genetical engineering is currently under ethical scepticism, and the cloning of humans is illegal, it is still possible to eventually end all kind (except possibly between ethnic groups as in Brave New World). Huxley saysNinety-six identical twins working ninety-six identical machines&8230 You really know where you are&8230 Community, Identity, Stability&8230 If we could bokanovskify a method whereby a human egg has its normal development arrested and whereupon it proceeds to bud, producing many identical eggs indefinetly the whole problem

My Mean Old Art Teacher Essays -- Personal Narrative Writing

My Mean Old Art TeacherMr. Arnold stands smugly by his classroom door between classes, with his weaponry proudly cross over his chest as trails of students trample past his stratagem room each day. Many of the passers-by recognize this man simply as the scary art teacher. Those who have experienced Mr. Arnolds art class first-hand regard him otherwise. I had heard many stories about Mr. Arnold before entering his grueling class. Most people dont uniform him, some warned me. Others commented, Ive heard his class is really difficult. I net remember my first day in his art class clearly. I entered his room a timid freshman with unpleasant expectations. Maybe I was even a little more than timid. The concept of high school frightened me, and having a teacher with a bad reputation didnt ease my fears. I was a sheltered fourteen-year old girl a girl who had been babied most of her life. I entered room 28 for the first time on a warm late-summers afternoon, as the suns rays attempted to soothe me through the windows. The poignant smell of oil blushing mushroom filtered through the air, nuts classical music drifted from his office and impressive artwork decorated the walls. Mr. Arnold always insisted, much to the students opposition, that, Classical music puts you in the right mind set to bring forth art. It will not distract you, it will force you to focus. The shelves juggled piles of aged art supplies and half-filled canvases doffed the edges of the room. Mr. Arnold loomed in front of the class with his pointer, a man with frosty argent hair and an undeniable bald spot, unraveling his list of arduous requirements. Art is not an easy B, he smirked, making reference to a sign on the wall, and squinting at us with his sharp icy eyes. Furt... ...der his tutelege. Mr. Arnolds guidance has made me realize that if I deeply and genuinely love what I do, I can succeed. Art has wisked me into lands of creativity and imagination I never knew. Ive learned to expand my b oundaries by setting sail on risky bodies of water. I may be somewhat of a timid person, but when I create art, I can fly. Mr. Arnold has helped me gain more of the confidence I so desperately undeniable to break loose. I spent four years in that same room, a room where I grew to love the familiar smell of oil paint and the sound of classical music, listening to Mr. Arnold holler, narrate, criticize, instruct and laugh. I do know an art teacher, different from the one who stands smugly by the door of his art room, with his arms proudly crossed over his chest, and I will never forget him because his teaching has shaped me as an artist, and as a person.