The human body's ability to repair itself is one of the most underappreciated regular bodily functions. Without this ability, cuts would never heal, colds would never pass, and broken bones would never mend. I am interested in stem cell therapy because of the innumerable implications that will come for this science in the future. The ideas for possible treatments are incredible and I wish to be able to see some of them put into practice during my lifetime. This topic can be very controversial, but it does not disturb my values or offend me personally. I do not have any personal connection to this research, but I do have a close relative with cerebral palsy, a disease which could find eventual treatment through stem cell therapy. There is not much that makes me qualified to speak on stem cell research. I am not a medical professional or anything with a higher standing than college undergraduate, but I do believe I should have an opinion on federal spending and legislation. My knowledge and experience with this subject comes almost entirely from this research, but my research itself is well founded and contains plenty of examples supporting its claims.

In "Stem Cell Research and Therapy: The Position of the National Society of Genetic Counselors" the author discusses the many places stem cells can be collected as well as the need to create diverse stem cell lines so treatments can be beneficial to the whole population. This article talks about court decisions and improper legislation, condemning the Bush presidency for its efforts to slow or stop research. The interests of the National Society of Genetic Counselors lies in their continuing support for stem cell treatment and research. Also, the group hopes that the federal government will start to provide more funding for this cause. This article was written in 2013 and so it remains fairly recent and relevant today. The NSGC consists of members of the medical field, especially genetics, so they are quite qualified and informed. The article is somewhat biased, not really addressing the ethical concerns that surround stem cells.

My second source again talks about conservative stem cell policies put in place by Bush as well as the prohibition of creating human embryos for research. "The Stem Cell Debate: Is It Over?" also mentions the severe lacking of funding for this research as well as the restrictions still in place. This article mainly focuses on the ethical problems with stem cell research as it involves the destruction of a human embryo. In some people's eyes, this is the taking of life from someone not developed enough to defend themselves. For this reason, embryos must be donated and used before they reach a certain stage of development. This article was published by the University of Utah and is mainly informative. This article is published on the University's website that is updated as of 2016 so it is also up to date. Bias is avoided in this article as it remains informative rather than argumentative.

The third article I selected discusses the history of stem cell research, the ethical issues behind destroying an embryo, and alternatives to the extraction of embryonic stem cells. The latter is supported by many examples of scientists attempting to return specialized cells to stem cell form, or changing them from one specialization to another. This article does an interesting job of combining both the ideas of stem cell research and the "pro-life" mentality. The author acknowledges the importance of stem cells, but also is sure to offer alternatives to the controversial embryo extraction. While the alternatives are not yet fully functional, they do provide a more ethically sound process. The article was written in 2015 by an Assistant Professor of Genetics at Washington University, so it's credibility is not in question. This article supports stem cell research, so it is somewhat biased, but since it offers alternatives to embryonic stem cells, it acknowledges both sides of the issue.

My research question is very arguable because there are two distinct sides to this issue. On one hand, there are those who support embryonic stem cell research and on the other are those who view this process as unethical and illegal. While there are ways to gain more support legislatively and financially, many of those sources are tied up ethically. However, according to the third article, there are new alternatives on the rise that may be of use in the future. The two perspectives do not affect my own view. I have my beliefs and people may not agree, but stem cell research is something that can be very beneficial and we should fully support it. If alternative methods turn out to be effective, then I would gladly accept a switch to those methods. I may need to revise my research question to be more specific to how we can pursue stem cell research in a manner that satisfies both sides of the argument.

