
I am interested in this research question because of how many people benefit from this research but also because of how many people disagree with it and why they do. It is interesting to see how and why so much of the population is in a disagreement with embryonic stem cell research while it could meanwhile progress the medical and scientific world to new and amazing degrees. Seeing as a family member of mine has been affected by a disease that was treated by research of embryonic stem cells, it has become an important part of me and my family. It affects my values of medical research due to the fact that I highly support this type of research, but to a certain extent. For example, I believe that embryonic stem cell research is highly beneficial but only up until the embryo reaches 14 days of growth. After this specific time, it is unethical to continue research on it. This is because at this point, the nervous system reaches development, which means the embryo can now feel things, making it that much more human. Overall, I do agree with this research but with limits regarding it. These limits include the proper time period before the stem cell becomes more developed. I am qualified to write about this because of my family's personal experience with it and due to my interest in the medical field. I have researched stem cells and specifically embryonic stem cells and the way they mature through time in the many comprehensive science and biology classes that I've taken throughout my education. 

The article "What Are Embryonic Stem Cells", written by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, describes what embryonic stem cells actually are, the purpose of them, and the way they are scientifically studied. This information includes what stages of embryonic development are important for generating stem cells, how stem cells are grown in the laboratory, and what the stem cells are used for. Values at stake for this article include the disputes about the idea of growing embryonic stem cells in the laboratory, and at what point in the growing process the stem cells are being disassembled and grown separately as stem cells. This is due to the fact that after 14 days of growth, it has matured enough that many think is too mature to continue research on it. Also, they value the advancement of medical procedures and to promote medical research. The credibility is high because the authors of it work with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which gives them credibility and knowledge on this topic, while avoiding any bias that may come along with this topic. The source itself is mainly factual, given this credibility and avoiding bias. 

"Embryonic Stem Cell Research Does Too Much Good to Be Evil", an article written by Janet Rowley, gives support for embryonic stem cell research and presents the fact that stem cells can be used to treat diseases and that advances toward treating diseases can be made through stem cell research. Major vales and interests at stake for this article are the moral issues that the scientific world has to go against while also trying to make important medical discoveries. This is based on and includes the complicated yet shared values of human embryonic life, and the preservation of lives after certain amounts of days. For example, some people regard the cells as a life right when the stem cells are generated while others believe the 14-day mark is where human life really begins. The author, Janet Rowley, is very credible on this specific topic because she is a professor of medicine at the University of Chicago and a member of the President's Council on Bioethics. Rowley has studied the complications of these moral issues intensely and can unbiasedly inform the reader of them. 

In Kristina Hug's article, "Embryonic Stem Cell Research: An Ethical Dilemma", she lists points of contention which is then followed by a table of arguments both for and against these points. Arguments against the research include that the embryo has full moral status from fertilization onwards, and that with researching these, we prevent the embryo from developing in its normal way, thus altering the way it can become a human being. She concludes the article with information regarding which religions accept and deny this research. Major values and interests at stake for this article include moral and ethical rights that go along with the values of those who follow many religions. This includes the right of an embryonic life or, the contrary, which supports the idea of saving another human being's life if possible. Stakes include the ability for scientists to study this form of life and progress with saving human lives or being limited with their studies. Hug is a Ph.D. student in the Department of Medical Ethics at Lund University, Sweden and studies Human Rights. This matters because to use the information in an essay, it has to be reliable to base arguments upon. This author is reliable because of her experience and studies. There is no bias in this article seeing that the author gives both sides of the argument, rather than just mentioning one. 

This research question is arguable because there are many passionate arguments both for and against the research due to the seriousness of the moral issues that go along with it. An argument against this topic is the idea that an embryo has human rights from fertilization onwards. For the support, many think that embryos have no moral status at all. These different perspectives affect my own by bringing insight from professionals that could alter or reinforce my prior standpoint.  I do not feel the need to revise my research question, seeing as I have refined it after reading these articles.

