mikethekoala
Jul 2, 2009
Research Papers / Research paper on scientific research [9]
I dont know what to make the title yet.
The prompt was to write about anything related to America. My teacher approved my topic.
I deleted the entire background info/hypothetical thesis sort of intro that went along with this.
I will however, include it in brackets for you to read over. I am not sure if I should still try to use it or not in the final draft.
This was supposed to be much more extensive, but became too much of a burden to continue working on, so I shortened it drastically. Originally, another main topic, followed by 3 subtopics, along with a final wrap up paragraph relating the entire essay to the thesis presented in the opening (which is now deleted, but included in brackets), and conclusion, were all going to be included. Now however, I have no conclusion, and have not included the other main topic, or it's 3 subtopics. Unfortunately, that topic happens to be the one I am most knowledgeable about. It was going to be focused on drug research, and pharmaceutical control of government drug policies.
[The United States of America is surely the "land of the free and home of the brave", but nowhere does it say that America is free of the omniscient presence of the grips of corruption. Sweltering beneath all the patriotism lays an ever-growing entity, which stands in the way of the long gone foundational American spirit of Progress. No longer is the Darwinian drive, to beat natural selection, embedded in the hearts of the once "American Dreamers". Unfortunately, the reality of the situation is much darker than most would be content in accepting. A simple skimming of the controversial and highly debated waters, of governmental involvement in the scientific field, will lead to inconclusive circularized logic on behalf of the upper hand; those in power; the government. In the words of the legendary folk musician and civil-rights activist, Bob Dylan, "You're gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed [sic]", and this famous line holds true for even the government. Their service is however, quite often not to the American People, but to those who hold the wealth of corporate empires in their back pockets, yes, to those who are the cause of corruption and ultimately the cause of devolution due to the blind tribute and unrevoked acceptance of wrong doing that is expected of the People of America.
Policies and interventionist strategies of American politics within the fields of science, medicine, research, et cetera . . . are unsupportive of the growth and advancement of the nation, well being of citizens, and do not reflect what the voting peoples of America need or want. The interference of government is spread throughout the scientific world and can be seen in the heavy limitations in research and experimentation. This is an issue that should be resolved and is not only a moral and ethical one, but also, it is simply an obstacle in the way of progress.
Progress is a goal that is necessary for growth. That being said, science is reasonably considered to be a large foundation for this growth/progress, but due to the incredibly strict limitations that have been placed on the progress of science, many studies, that likely could have been tremendously beneficial, have come to a screeching halt. Of those affected by government impedance, stem cell and cloning research, and drug research would fall very near the top of the list of what has become the most underfunded, restricted, and discontinued areas of what ideally could be very progressive areas of study and could quite possibly lead to further developments and advancements in current knowledge and applications of said subjects which suffer government neglect.
In the case of stem cells and cloning, the government has done little to help the current scientific ventures into the depths of the subjects expand, and in hopes of long term goals held by scientists, eventually become applicable for medical uses to help people and hopefully find groundbreaking possibilities to eliminate previous life-threatening ailments. It is important to understand what stem cells are in order to grasp the later dangers of government obstructions. Stem cells are human cells that essentially have not been "specialized", meaning; they are not a specific type of cell, such as a skin cell, or brain cell, and have potential to divide and become a "specialized" cell with a specific function. (Ham; NIH, Stem Cells Basics) The benefit to this is that the cell then has the potential to be used in treatments for fatal diseases.
Some of the more notable diseases that stem cells are though to cure are: Alzheimer's, diabetes, and heart disease, among many others. (Goldstein; Ham; NIH) The source for these stem cells would be from that of a three to five day old human embryo. The embryo is "composed of 50-100 cells, and which has no heart, no blood, no brain and no human features other than a human genome." (Goldstein) The oppositional argument in this case, is committed to ban research and development with human embryos because it considers them to be required by law to be recognized as an adult entity. Clearly there is a difference between a cluster of cells and a living human. So why then, has the government been so hard pressed on banning such research? Bill Saunders states that, "If therapeutic cloning research were as promising as some claim, the stock market would be pouring tons of money into biotech companies pursuing this technology. But in fact, very few companies are funding this type of research." Could the fact that companies are not interested in research, that yields no immediate monetary potential, be the reason? Stem cell research is said to be morally acceptable by 54% of those questioned, according to survey. (Pub. Op.) If the government were acting on what the people wanted, then a ban on stem cell research would not exist. Similarly, there are issues within drug research that are related to government interferences.
Drug research is an important area of study because simply because it is what determines if medicines are safe for human consumption. One of the issues that affect this however, is the inability to conduct research on primates. The opposing viewpoint on the matter is that it is abusive to animal rights. However, protecting the safety of humans should be a primary concern. Animals such as rats, which are permitted to be used in research and testing, are not a completely accurate model of a human, and do not demonstrate the way in which humans would be expected to react to certain chemicals. "For years research on Parkinson's disease has been limited by the lack of an animal model on which to test new drugs and treatments," which is in part due to the fact that rats were the subjects being used in testing.
A noteworthy case of where this has been problematic is in the case of the MPTP outbreaks in the 1980's. (Perry) MPTP is a contaminant that is found in MPPP, which is a synthetic chemical that is often called "synthetic heroin". (Man) The "MPTP outbreaks" were a series of events, which occurred in the 1980's, where a rapid growing number of people were developing a mysterious case of Parkinson's syndrome after ingesting what they believed to be heroin. (Man) Scientists were baffled as to what could possibly be causing these Parkinson symptoms amongst heroin abusers scattered across the country. Eventually, samples of what the victims had believed to be heroin were discovered. Scientists determined the samples to be not heroin, but MPTP. In their testing of MPTP on rats, they were unable to find a link between the Parkinson symptoms and the use of MPTP because the rats had little to no lasting effects after use.
Not until years later, when MPTP effects were studied in African monkeys, did it become established that MPTP caused Parkinson's disease. The reason being, that MPTP breaks down into toxic chemical when put into the human blood stream, this does not occur in rats, and therefore, the rats suffered none of the effects that humans had. (Man; Perry) According to Prof. Lawrence Corey, in order decide whether a vaccine or medication is safe and useful in fighting disease, "prudent use of animal resources is a necessary part of the process of medical research to improve human and animal health." (Corey) It is necessary for the government to recognize the degree of necessity that is present within the scientific field for the use of animal testing. If the government, or their agencies, such as the FDA, refuses to grant permission for testing on primates, then many studies could remain inconclusive, similar to the MPTP case until it was later granted permission.
Thank you.
I dont know what to make the title yet.
The prompt was to write about anything related to America. My teacher approved my topic.
I deleted the entire background info/hypothetical thesis sort of intro that went along with this.
I will however, include it in brackets for you to read over. I am not sure if I should still try to use it or not in the final draft.
This was supposed to be much more extensive, but became too much of a burden to continue working on, so I shortened it drastically. Originally, another main topic, followed by 3 subtopics, along with a final wrap up paragraph relating the entire essay to the thesis presented in the opening (which is now deleted, but included in brackets), and conclusion, were all going to be included. Now however, I have no conclusion, and have not included the other main topic, or it's 3 subtopics. Unfortunately, that topic happens to be the one I am most knowledgeable about. It was going to be focused on drug research, and pharmaceutical control of government drug policies.
[The United States of America is surely the "land of the free and home of the brave", but nowhere does it say that America is free of the omniscient presence of the grips of corruption. Sweltering beneath all the patriotism lays an ever-growing entity, which stands in the way of the long gone foundational American spirit of Progress. No longer is the Darwinian drive, to beat natural selection, embedded in the hearts of the once "American Dreamers". Unfortunately, the reality of the situation is much darker than most would be content in accepting. A simple skimming of the controversial and highly debated waters, of governmental involvement in the scientific field, will lead to inconclusive circularized logic on behalf of the upper hand; those in power; the government. In the words of the legendary folk musician and civil-rights activist, Bob Dylan, "You're gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed [sic]", and this famous line holds true for even the government. Their service is however, quite often not to the American People, but to those who hold the wealth of corporate empires in their back pockets, yes, to those who are the cause of corruption and ultimately the cause of devolution due to the blind tribute and unrevoked acceptance of wrong doing that is expected of the People of America.
Policies and interventionist strategies of American politics within the fields of science, medicine, research, et cetera . . . are unsupportive of the growth and advancement of the nation, well being of citizens, and do not reflect what the voting peoples of America need or want. The interference of government is spread throughout the scientific world and can be seen in the heavy limitations in research and experimentation. This is an issue that should be resolved and is not only a moral and ethical one, but also, it is simply an obstacle in the way of progress.
Progress is a goal that is necessary for growth. That being said, science is reasonably considered to be a large foundation for this growth/progress, but due to the incredibly strict limitations that have been placed on the progress of science, many studies, that likely could have been tremendously beneficial, have come to a screeching halt. Of those affected by government impedance, stem cell and cloning research, and drug research would fall very near the top of the list of what has become the most underfunded, restricted, and discontinued areas of what ideally could be very progressive areas of study and could quite possibly lead to further developments and advancements in current knowledge and applications of said subjects which suffer government neglect.
In the case of stem cells and cloning, the government has done little to help the current scientific ventures into the depths of the subjects expand, and in hopes of long term goals held by scientists, eventually become applicable for medical uses to help people and hopefully find groundbreaking possibilities to eliminate previous life-threatening ailments. It is important to understand what stem cells are in order to grasp the later dangers of government obstructions. Stem cells are human cells that essentially have not been "specialized", meaning; they are not a specific type of cell, such as a skin cell, or brain cell, and have potential to divide and become a "specialized" cell with a specific function. (Ham; NIH, Stem Cells Basics) The benefit to this is that the cell then has the potential to be used in treatments for fatal diseases.
Some of the more notable diseases that stem cells are though to cure are: Alzheimer's, diabetes, and heart disease, among many others. (Goldstein; Ham; NIH) The source for these stem cells would be from that of a three to five day old human embryo. The embryo is "composed of 50-100 cells, and which has no heart, no blood, no brain and no human features other than a human genome." (Goldstein) The oppositional argument in this case, is committed to ban research and development with human embryos because it considers them to be required by law to be recognized as an adult entity. Clearly there is a difference between a cluster of cells and a living human. So why then, has the government been so hard pressed on banning such research? Bill Saunders states that, "If therapeutic cloning research were as promising as some claim, the stock market would be pouring tons of money into biotech companies pursuing this technology. But in fact, very few companies are funding this type of research." Could the fact that companies are not interested in research, that yields no immediate monetary potential, be the reason? Stem cell research is said to be morally acceptable by 54% of those questioned, according to survey. (Pub. Op.) If the government were acting on what the people wanted, then a ban on stem cell research would not exist. Similarly, there are issues within drug research that are related to government interferences.
Drug research is an important area of study because simply because it is what determines if medicines are safe for human consumption. One of the issues that affect this however, is the inability to conduct research on primates. The opposing viewpoint on the matter is that it is abusive to animal rights. However, protecting the safety of humans should be a primary concern. Animals such as rats, which are permitted to be used in research and testing, are not a completely accurate model of a human, and do not demonstrate the way in which humans would be expected to react to certain chemicals. "For years research on Parkinson's disease has been limited by the lack of an animal model on which to test new drugs and treatments," which is in part due to the fact that rats were the subjects being used in testing.
A noteworthy case of where this has been problematic is in the case of the MPTP outbreaks in the 1980's. (Perry) MPTP is a contaminant that is found in MPPP, which is a synthetic chemical that is often called "synthetic heroin". (Man) The "MPTP outbreaks" were a series of events, which occurred in the 1980's, where a rapid growing number of people were developing a mysterious case of Parkinson's syndrome after ingesting what they believed to be heroin. (Man) Scientists were baffled as to what could possibly be causing these Parkinson symptoms amongst heroin abusers scattered across the country. Eventually, samples of what the victims had believed to be heroin were discovered. Scientists determined the samples to be not heroin, but MPTP. In their testing of MPTP on rats, they were unable to find a link between the Parkinson symptoms and the use of MPTP because the rats had little to no lasting effects after use.
Not until years later, when MPTP effects were studied in African monkeys, did it become established that MPTP caused Parkinson's disease. The reason being, that MPTP breaks down into toxic chemical when put into the human blood stream, this does not occur in rats, and therefore, the rats suffered none of the effects that humans had. (Man; Perry) According to Prof. Lawrence Corey, in order decide whether a vaccine or medication is safe and useful in fighting disease, "prudent use of animal resources is a necessary part of the process of medical research to improve human and animal health." (Corey) It is necessary for the government to recognize the degree of necessity that is present within the scientific field for the use of animal testing. If the government, or their agencies, such as the FDA, refuses to grant permission for testing on primates, then many studies could remain inconclusive, similar to the MPTP case until it was later granted permission.
Thank you.