Wow, that's some tough middle-school you've got there- I'm glad mine never did that to me! I think I'd have died of fright if I'd had to get up before the whole school.

You've picked a rather broad topic with an even broader range of different views and agendas- one thing's for sure; you'll have plenty of material to give a speech on.

Most of the time, you'll hear only two diametrically opposed points of view on the Stem Cell issue- the extreme pro-life faction, which opposes the destruction of anything that stands even the remotest chance of becoming a human being, and the extreme pro-research faction which promotes the use of any and all available stem cells for medical research regardless of their origin.

Needless to say, most folks fall somewhere in between. Never make the mistake of assuming that everybody falls into one camp or the other; often you'll find the truth to be that everybody believes something slightly different, and that most people won't agree completely even with the faction they identify most closely with.

In other words, don't make it a presentation on Find The Cure vs. Save The Embryos. It just isn't that simple, much as some people (and most of the media) would like to think it is.

Personally, I think that stem cell research holds great potential- but that research needs to be undertaken with the utmost care and concern. Given that embryonic stem-cell research deals with some significant unknowns (namely the definition and the limits of human life), steps must be taken in order to ensure that any possible moral and ethical concerns are taken care of.

There are some very nasty diseases (some of which have come closer to home than I'd like) which stem-cell research holds some promise of curing- but the cost of the research must be balanced with the potential benefit. It is important to realize that there is no correct or incorrect belief about when life begins so long as the nature of what life is remains an unknown- something I've only recently come to acknowledge as I've gotten to know several people with vastly different beliefs where life is concerned.

Don't expect to find a definite answer one way or another.

I guess I will narrow it down to Embryonic Stem Cell research. Since there are other kinds. I do go to a high academic school. While I was at my old school I took a scholarship test to go to the school I am in now and I won a $8,000 scholarship.

Congrats on that. I woudl personaly put your own personal views on this subject aside and report on all sides, left, right, and center. This would provide your audience with a wide spectrum of issues, concerns, and solutions this topic can and will muster up.

Nukelt is correct in that media really portrays this issue as pro-life vs pro-research. Most normal people are in fact in the middle somewhere and can see the pros and cons of both sides of this debate.

Good luck with your project. Just google your topic and you will get more info than you know what to do with. Just when reading something for research, keep in mind the source as it will probably be a biased view of one side or the other.

Strictly from a research perspective (sorry, I don't have time to share my views on stem cells right now...), try not to go with all internet sources. Any internet source, no matter how credible will not always be viewed as such by your instructor(s), so make sure to use print or even interview sources if you can.

but didn't all this stem-cell business turn out to be a load of old hokey when that Korean scientist guy got caught a while back faking his results just so he could get a big pile of research money?

Well most people are just being hippocritical here.

They walk around waving their bibles claiming "THOUGH SHALT NOT KILL"

Yest there are several passages in the bible detailing when somthing is alive. The most reaonable one i've seen was when the blood flows.


Honestly i think that both sides are a bit crazy. The one side thinks that ALL of them should be used and the other one will send an M80 in your garbage disposal to prove a point. Me i lean towards the "it's okay" side. I can''t say anymore without entering Debate Mode

My favorite question for the pro-life advocates is this: "What do you think happens to the embryos that aren't used for research?"

They might say that they are implanted, or stored. But like everything, embryos can go bad. Most of them end up in the garbage can. Thousands upon thousands of embryos that could have been used for research but were not because hypocritical religious zealots told them not to are being thrown away.

Isn't there a better way to use them? A way to stop all those horrific diseases that claims the lives of many and plagues the lives of many more?

Thats my opinion on the subject.

I wasn't asking from a moralistic standpoint. I just thought that it came to a grinding halt when the Korean guy, at the time time the world's leading researcher, turned out to be a fraud.

I don't believe it stopped with him. He faked his results so he could get attention. I believe that stem cell research can be very helpful in the long run, whether it's funded by the government or not.

Blackhole hits the nail on the head. What is strange is the refusal to use embryos that are destined for disposal anyway. There was also news recently about possibly creating human embryonic stem cells by injecting a human cell nucleus into a cow egg that's had its own nucleus removed. If that was succesful, you could technically create a human being out of any human cell. I'd love to see how those same people would react upon finding out that you could make an embryo from a white blood cell from a pimple

In all seriousness, I followed the issue this year with interest and saw what I thought would be the best compromise: using those embryos left over from fertility treatment. There was a bill in the works that was written such that the donors could not receive any kind of award for it and would have to donate them voluntarily. Hopefully that would allay fears of people selling their gametes for profit. However, and I'll try to avoid getting too political here, Bush vetoed it in what I would call at the very least a short-sighted move. He was saying he would veto any embryonic stem cell laws before they had even passed through the other layers of government.