SWA#3

The argument I have found to discuss is on stem cell research but this particular debate is not necessarily on the ethical issue, but more on which type of stem cell research is better. The online article can be found on Harvard University’s Gazette. The type of argument was a traditional public debate at Harvard Law School on April 15, 2005. The two arguers are Eggan who is for embryonic stem cell research and Prentice who is for adult stem cell research. Both of the arguers are very knowledgeable in this specific subject, because of their research background and participation in certain organizations. The two debaters argue which would be more successful after Senator Brownback had recently debated the ethics of stem cell research at the school.
Eggan wants us to believe that the use of embryonic stem cells have a better chance of being successful because adult stem cells have a “limited ability to differentiate” whereas, “embryonic stem cells can give rise to virtually any type of cell in the body.” He also speaks on how certain diseases such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease can be treated better with embryonic stem cells because they can be grown in a lab. On the opposing side, Prentice argues that adult stem cells have been more researched and are more reliable to work, whereas embryonic stem cells are “difficult to grow” and have the “potential for tumor formation”. He also says that there have been clinical studies that show that the use of adult stem cells has benefitted stroke repair as well as heart damage repair, and that embryonic stem cells have yet to be found clinically beneficial.
This debate seems like an effective argument because both sides make their claim and back it up with plenty of evidence. They didn’t even discuss the ethical issues during the debate but rather discussed the issue without any emotional attachment. They strictly argued which type of stem cell research is more efficient. They also have a common ground in which they are both for stem cell research. During the argument they also address certain issues that they agree somewhat on but still find a way to inject their opinion into it. By the end of the argument, nothing was solved or completely agreed upon, but that is partly because this issue is still being argued in many places by many people and has not been officially resolved.

http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2005/04.21/01-stem.html