Conceptual System Design Essay Essay Example

Conceptual System Design Essay Paper During the system analysis. the analysis of system informations is really of import. Analysis of information is made up of more than one degree at the beginning ( first degree ) and different thoughts are used at each degree. At first degree. analyst develops a conceptual system design. Since the conceptual design sets the way for the direction information system ( MIS ) . It is critical that directors participate earnestly and to a great extent at this phase. Conceptual design is sometimes called feasibleness design. gross design or high degree design. The conceptual design stage takes as input. We will write a custom essay sample on Conceptual System Design Essay specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now We will write a custom essay sample on Conceptual System Design Essay specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer We will write a custom essay sample on Conceptual System Design Essay specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer 1. A sharp statement of a direction information demand and 2. A set of direction aims for the MIS In the conceptual design phase that the alternate overall MIS designs are conceived and the best 1 is selected by the system analyst in audience with the top direction. The feasibleness of run intoing the direction aims for the MIS is assessed demoing how the system will work at the high degree is drawn. Therefore. conceptual design is besides known as gross design ; high degree becomes the footing for the elaborate MIS design. Hence. conceptual design is a pre-design for the elaborate design. In fact. conceptual design is the â€Å"centerpiece† of the procedure. Merely after conceptual design is completed. it can be certain that the MIS can successfully be constructed. The conceptual design involves the undermentioned undertakings. 1. Specifying jobs in more inside informations.2. Polishing the direction aims to put system aims.3. Establishing system restraints.4. Determining information demands and their beginnings.5. Developing alternate designs and choice one from these assorted designs.6. Document the conceptual design and fixing the study. 1. Specify the problem- There is no uncertainty that jobs exists in any dynamic concern. The most of import is that what are normally missing are clear definitions of the jobs and the precedence system on the footing of job is the chief solution. Therefore. direction must take the first measure in MIS design by explicating jobs to be solved. The job can be solved by the iterative procedure. The end for the concern leads to the aims of the general concern. From the aims. programs are derived. Each concern aims and concern programs are derived. Each concern aims and concern programs are associated with information demands. These Information demands are the jobs to be solved by the MIS map. The statements of demands are adequate for planing procedure. 1. Stating the information demand.2. Asking inquiries about that demand.3. Proposing reading of that demand.4. Detailing the original statement.5. Reviewing the more elaborate statement of demand with direction. These stairss are repeated until the information demands and the job to be solved are truly understood. The procedure of job polish flows of course into the system aims. 2. Set System Aims Most of the clip it is rather hard to province aims for systems that covers all the functional countries. The director must specify the system objectives in footings of the importance of information demands and non in footings of the satisfaction of demands that are non related to an aim. System analyst tends to emphasize processing efficiency and staff and functional supervisors normally believe that their aim is â€Å"to complete the needed study in clip for direction use† . This position disregards the existent aims of the system design. management’s effectivity. The value of system lies in the benefits of the users. When we ask for the aims. a college principal may answer. † provide quality education† and a authorities administrative official may say† supply more occupations for the unemployed† . Despite its trouble being specific is necessary. System objectives should be expressed in footings of what directors can make after their information demands have been met. In drumhead. the first stairss in systems design attempts to reply the question† what is the intent of the system? † why it is needed? What is it expected to make? Who are the users what are their aims? 3. Establish System Constraints The iterative nature of the systems design procedure is easy understood when we consider the 3rd measure in the process-establishing restraints. It can besides be called as job boundaries or limitations. restraints enable the interior decorator to qualify the conditions under which aims may be attained and to see the restrictions that restricts the design. The two stairss of puting aims and set uping restraints may be considered together as one. Constraints may be viewed as a negative restriction on systems design. there is a positive benefit besides. Establishing restraints will assist to guarantee that the design is realistic. Constraints may be classified as external or internal to the organisation. External Constraints The external environment of the organisation is concerned by the client. Order entry. charge and other systems that interface with the customer’s needs in head. If some end products from the system are non acceptable to the client. a definite restriction must be faced up. The authorities imposes certain limitations on the processing of informations. That may be the demand to keep the security of certain categories of information to follow with jurisprudence and ordinance in the behavior of concern ( e. g. revenue enhancements. describing ) . Unions can besides impact the operations of systems affecting members in working conditions. Suppliers are besides an of import group to be considered when planing information systems because these systems often interface with that group. Internal Constraints If top direction support is non obtained for the systems construct and for the impression that computing machine based information systems are critical for direction planning and control. the type of design attempt can non be implemented. A good environment for information systems must be set. and one indispensable demand is the blessing and support of the top direction. Organizational and policy considerations often set bound on aims and modify an intended attack to design of the system. Company policies often define or limit the attack to systems designs. Forces demands and forces handiness are a major restricting factor in both the design and use of information systems. Computer and systems accomplishments are among the most critical in the state. The most important restraint of all is the one refering the people. Cost is a major resource restriction. The cost to file away the aims should be compared with the benefits to be derived. Self-imposed limitations are these placed on the design by the director or the interior decorator. The director will besides curtail the sum of clip and attempt devoted to probe. To accomplish the aim. the director may hold to scale down several demands to do the system tantrum with other end products. equipments or restraints. 4. Determining Information demands and beginnings For a good system design. a clear statement of information demands is really of import and necessary. Many organisations spend immense sums on hardware and package to keep bing systems or construct sophisticated informations Bankss. without first finding the existent information demands of direction: the information that can increase the ability of directors in critical countries such as jobs. options. chances and programs. The optimal consequences can non be achieved unless directors can supply the specifications for what they want out of an information system. The director needs information for assortment of grounds concerned with the direction procedure. The type of demands at assorted times and assorted intents depends mostly upon two factors. a ) The personal managerial properties of the single director and B ) The organisational environment in which determinations are made. The information beginnings are of import for finding information demands. The system may necessitate external information or the internal. 5. Alternate conceptual designs and choosing one The development of a construct of a system is a originative procedure that involves synthesising cognition into some peculiar form. The construct of an MIS would dwell of the major determination points. forms of information flow. channels of information and functions of directors and rivals. The construct is the study of the constructions or skeleton of the Information System. which ushers and restricts the signifier of the elaborate design. If conceptual design is the skeleton. so elaborate design is the flesh. E. g. two squads of pupils are seeking to make undertaking on the tourer usher and contact information system. One construct produced is a study demoing a item about the peculiar topographic points depicting its civilization. heritages along with the colleges. Hotels and trade. Whereas another squad produces a study of description of colleges along with the description of module and the fee structures on assorted demands. It is obvious that each alternate construct of a system has advantages and disadvantages. Sometimes one construct will rule all others by major standards. 6. Document the best design Sufficient information has been accumulated to get down a more elaborate description of the system construct. This description includes basically a flow chart or other certification of the flow of information through the system. the inputs and the end products. The director should be involved to the extent that the system provides the information required the interior decorator is concerned with the nature of the stuffs and equipment every bit good as with proficient processing considerations. Detailss to be worked out subsequently by the interior decorator will include exact instructions as what informations are to be captured and when. the files are to be used. the inside informations of how processing is to be done. what outputs will be generated by the system etc. Design Methods There are a no. of methods for planing information systems. Following is a brief description of some of the popular methods. †¢ Problem Partitioning †¢ Structured Design †¢ Top-Down Design Problem Partitioning †¢ The method is based on the rule of ‘divide and conquer’ . In this method. alternatively of work outing the full job at one time. the job is divided into little manageable parts that can be solved individually. Structured Design †¢ In this method. a structured confab is created. which can be used to implement the system. The chart depicts faculties specifying each faculty by the specific map. Assorted tools like flow-charting. informations flow diagrams. construction charts. structured English. etc. are used in a structured design. Top-down Design †¢ The top-down design is based on the construct of a system which suggests that a system consists of sub-system. which has sub-system of their ain. In other words. a system may be termed as a hierarchy of sub-systems. the highest degree sub-system matching to the entire system. Detailed System Design As already stated. conceptual design in itself is non the terminal of the design procedure ; instead it serves as a footing for the elaborate MIS design. The public presentation demands specified by the conceptual design become inputs to the elaborate design stages. in which these are farther refined. elaborate and finalized to be called the system specifications. Therefore. the chief aim of the elaborate system design is to fix a bluish print of a system that meets the ends of the conceptual system design demands. Detailed system design involves the undermentioned stages. I. Undertaking Planning and control two. Involves the User three. Specify the Detailed Sub-Systems four. Input/output Design v. Feedback from the User six. Database Design seven. Procedure Design eight. Design Documentation A brief treatment on each of the stages is given below. Undertaking Planing In order to guarantee an effectual and efficient design of the MIS. it is really of import that a elaborate design procedure should in itself be considered a complete undertaking. Therefore. the first measure in the elaborate design is be aftering and commanding. so that criterions may be established and a proper followup is made. Some of the chief points which are of import in planning and control of a elaborate design are given below. †¢ Undertaking Planing i. Formulate the undertaking Objectives. two. Specify the undertaking undertaking. three. Fix a web diagram of all events and activities so as to stipulate consecutive and parallel events. four. Schedule the work as per the demands of the user. v. Prepare a budget for the undertaking. †¢ Project Control I. Get a feedback of the existent public presentation of the undertaking with regard to clip. cost and work of the undertaking and compare it with agendas. budgets and proficient programs. two. Take disciplinary action where required so as to keep control. Involve the User System interior decorator must inform the users sing the new information system being developed and derive their support and credence. In this stage. users are assured that alterations will profit them or that they will non be at disadvantage because of the new system. It is besides of import to take users in assurance so as to obtain information for the design of the system. This will besides assist pull offing opposition to alter and would guarantee successful execution of the system. Detailed Sub-System Definition In elaborate system design. every system needs to be broken down to determine all activities required and their several inputs and end products. In some of the instances. sub-systems are loosely defined in the conceptual design stage. but at this phase they are specifically defined to work out every item refering the sub-system. Decomposition of the system to operational activities in general is carried out as follows.

Free Essays on Puritan Views

Savage Beasts: The Puritan View of Indians Puritan society evolved from a Protestant religious and social movement rising primarily in England during the Protestant Reformation in the early 1600’s. During this reformation Puritan settlers set out towards the new found land of America in hopes of attaining religious freedom from the persecution of the Church of England. Although this promising land of America was full of golden opportunity, the Puritans were bound for hardships such as sickness and death, not to mention having to encounter the savages already inhabiting this land. Puritans viewed these people as wild animals and disagreed with their way of life. When the Puritans set out for their new freedom, they were very skeptical about the land they were traveling to. Even though it was a great environment to begin their new lives and full of resources, the Puritans were doubtful of how they would survive. According to William Bradford, America was â€Å"devoid of all civil in habitants,† and only brutish beasts existed there (168). The Puritans feared the sickness and disease that came with adjusting to a new place, but feared even more what would become of them should they survive those things. They worried and felt that the Native Americans, who in Bradford’s opinion were, â€Å"cruel, barbarous and most treacherous,† would always threaten them (169). He along with others thought that they were â€Å"furious in their rage and merciless where they overcome; not being content only to kill and take way life, but delighted to torment men in the most bloody manner that may be; flaying some alive with the shells of fishes, cutting off the members and joints of others by piecemeal and broiling on the coals, and eating the collops of their flesh in their sight whilst they live† (Bradford 169). Such inhumane acts were so very different from the way of the Puritans. Puritans believed in humanity and goodness. The Puritans fe... Free Essays on Puritan Views Free Essays on Puritan Views Savage Beasts: The Puritan View of Indians Puritan society evolved from a Protestant religious and social movement rising primarily in England during the Protestant Reformation in the early 1600’s. During this reformation Puritan settlers set out towards the new found land of America in hopes of attaining religious freedom from the persecution of the Church of England. Although this promising land of America was full of golden opportunity, the Puritans were bound for hardships such as sickness and death, not to mention having to encounter the savages already inhabiting this land. Puritans viewed these people as wild animals and disagreed with their way of life. When the Puritans set out for their new freedom, they were very skeptical about the land they were traveling to. Even though it was a great environment to begin their new lives and full of resources, the Puritans were doubtful of how they would survive. According to William Bradford, America was â€Å"devoid of all civil in habitants,† and only brutish beasts existed there (168). The Puritans feared the sickness and disease that came with adjusting to a new place, but feared even more what would become of them should they survive those things. They worried and felt that the Native Americans, who in Bradford’s opinion were, â€Å"cruel, barbarous and most treacherous,† would always threaten them (169). He along with others thought that they were â€Å"furious in their rage and merciless where they overcome; not being content only to kill and take way life, but delighted to torment men in the most bloody manner that may be; flaying some alive with the shells of fishes, cutting off the members and joints of others by piecemeal and broiling on the coals, and eating the collops of their flesh in their sight whilst they live† (Bradford 169). Such inhumane acts were so very different from the way of the Puritans. Puritans believed in humanity and goodness. The Puritans fe...

You are required to complete the following two exercises in the Essay

You are required to complete the following two exercises in the seminar class through reflection upon the learning developed from todays seminar activities & class discussions - Essay Example In sports, leadership is fuelled by motivation to be the best, make peers proud, and have the gratification to be the best. Leaderships is undeniably stemmed from an inner motivation to excel and lead a group of individuals to a collaborative success. This is such a crucial aspect because some crave leadership because it puts them in power. However, the author is quick to point out that good leaders will always A leader is a person who guides a group of individual towards a certain goal. Leading by example as the author states is a must for any leader. Successful leaders love being leaders, not for the sake of power but for the meaningful and purposeful impact they can create. This in fact is the manifestation of being a good leader. The author argues that leadership has some traits as critical towards any leaders. One of the key aspects I learned from this article was the fact that leaders do not always necessarily know everything, but they know how to deploy talent. As an individua l who seeks to be a leader, this is much valuable advice because most leaders feel that they should know everything. From an individual’s perspective, it is crucial to understand that leaders have a holistic view of their goals rather than knowing every micro-detail, which can harmful. That is not to say that leaders must be not knowledgeable in their respective areas, but to understand that what talent lies within the group. This has been becoming more evident in the corporate world where CEOs understand the whole picture rather than focusing in minor details. Without a doubt, this sheds a lot of light in successful traits of leaderships and has really allowed me to gain powerful insights on the attributes of being a leader. In the end, it is evident that these attributes allow leaders to fulfill their success and enhance the value of their organization’s brand. Managing people in the 21st organization

Flight Center Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Flight Center - Essay Example An agency seeks out rates from these suppliers which can be hotels, resorts, airline companies, car rentals and the like, then consolidates it into one package packed with some sight-seeing trips to tourist attractions then sells it to the possible consumers. The Federation of Tour Operators (2006) views the role of travel agents as giving advises and sells bookings. This has always been the way of Flight Centre, incorporating its aim to provide â€Å"value-for-money travel† and offer ‘unbeatable passion and experience, going the extra mile to ensure clients get the best trip at the best price’ (Superbrands 2010). As Flight Centre’s tag-line goes, â€Å"unbeatable†, if another travel provider would give a quotation of rates, Flight Centre will also give their own rate which would be hard to beat because of their price, quality, passion and extensive experience in the travel field. Just like any other business, Flight Centre started their venture eigh t years after Top-Deck, UK based bus company started its operation in 1973; they initially gained success because of providing cheap rates. In nine years time, Turner opened retail stores in United Kingdom, New Zealand and United States of America. Because of what was then a world-wide crisis, the Gulf War, the stores experienced temporary closure but was then reopened after a couple of years. The company also expanded its services to South Africa and Canada, which paved the way for it to conquer a world-wide market. The strength of business establishment outweighs the weaknesses and creates the reason why establishment weathers the changes in the needs and wants of the dynamic world of travel and tourism. As for Flight Centre, there are various aspects why they are experiencing the success envied by others. The company philosophy of volume of margin, the way they create their product with utmost passion and dedication, their well maintained reputation of having an inclination of lo w-cost travel with value-for-money, their credentials which have been given recognitions and citations by other entities, the continuous pledge for corporate social governance of giving something back to the people, their ingenuity in their marketing campaigns, the way management supports its employees and the work atmosphere are among the countless reasons why they managed to stay on top. There are a lot of sources for a travel agency’s income, from commissions, profit margins, incentives, and auxiliary services like documentations and visa processing. The first two are among the primary source of income. Flight Centre proved itself to be different than the rest; the traveller’s volumes were their driving force to stay on top of all the travel providers in the business. The importance of the number of people they give their services over the profit that they will be making indeed set foot a birth-mark for low-cost travel. They settle for more customers at a lower cost than few customers for a high cost. The success of Flight Centre can be credited to the way the company does its products. They maintained a sense of focus; doing what they do best without being too innovative. There are those who would like to set anew, and there are a few who would take advantage for what they know best, the exact philosophy evolving around this high-ranked company. Turner (2006) stated that, ‘

My Neighbor Totoro, Tonari no Totoro Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

My Neighbor Totoro, Tonari no Totoro - Essay Example Mei and Satsuki find that the house is occupied by small animated dust creatures referred to as susuwatari (Kjolseth 1). These are dark, small, dust-like home-spirits seen when shifting from bright to dark areas. Such beliefs, according to research, were thought to exist mostly in the mid 90’s in Japan (Kjolseth 1). The time period, hence, leaves this film to be focused around the mid 90’s. Signs of worship or an element of Shintoism, can be viewed in details such as the paper ribbon rope on Totoros tree and Shimenawa rice straw (Kjolseth 1). They signify that the land is sacred. The audience can also spot a neglected Shinto shrine beneath the camphor tree, as well as a Torii Shinto shrine gateway, at the entrance to a hill. Furthermore, enhancing the naturalistic elements of the movie is Hisaishis work on incorporating these shrines. They show how Japan used to be a holy place back then (Kjolseth 1). Some of the crucial themes incorporated in Miyazaki’s film are Environmentalism, Flight, Children and childhood, as well as Water. Flight, in particular human flight, is a habitual theme in My Neighbor Totoro (Kjolseth 1). The director thinks of flight as a type of freedom from gravity. In My Neighbor Totoro, with regards to Environmentalism, people interact with large tree tops where tiny mysterious creatures live. People use these trees as worship points. Water is also a constant theme in antagonism to the Ascension representation of flight. Critics, after the film was released, recognized Totoro as one of the best cartoon actors, describing the being as both awe-inspiring and innocent. This more than what was established in Japan’s film industry as the director brought in new things (Kjolseth 1). King Totoro captures the magic of childhood and innocence more than any of Miyazakis other supernatural creations. The director recognized the main

Ethical Questions in the Stem Cell Debate

Ethical Questions in the Stem Cell Debate The Stem Cell Debate: Ethical Questions The story for the year 1997 was the sacred. We fear a Promethean blunder. We fear that our own human hubris will violate something sacred in our nature; and we fear that nature will retaliate with disaster. To protect ourselves from a possible Promethean blunder by science, we are tempted to stop further research with the commandment: thou shalt not play God! Then, during 1999, we opened the first few pages on chapter two of the cloning controversy story. I will refer to this chapter as the stem cell debate. The debate has only begun. What is not yet clear is just what needs to be debated. Perhaps nothing. Perhaps everything. What is clear is that the fallout from the cloning explosion is still lighting fires here and there. Whether or not the public will add stem cells to the fuel to make those fires burn hotter remains to be seen. Stem cells have become front page news in Australia, as well as in the United States and other countries. On February 4, 1999, the Australian National Academy of Science issued a position statement. Note the structure of Recommendation 1. Council considers that reproductive cloning to produce human fetuses is unethical and unsafe and should be prohibited.However, human cells derived from cloning techniques, from germ cells should not be precluded from use in approved research activities in cellular and developmental biology Here two things are put together. First, disapproval of reproductive cloning for the purposes of making children. Second, approval of research on human embryonic stem cells, approval even in the face of ethical squeamishness regarding embryo research. If this Australian statement is a barometer, we need to ask: what is the cultural weather forecast? What might be coming? In what follows it will be my task to report on the fast-moving frontier of stem cell research within the field of anthropology, agenda questions raised by science that need to be addressed by systematic theologians and public policy makers. I will ask more questions than I am ready to answer. Yet, I believe that such work invested in trying to formulate the relevant question (die Fragestellung) takes us more than just halfway toward a helpful answer. The Human Embryonic Stem Cell Debate Science, Ethics, and Public Policy Edited by Laurie Zoloth Human embryonic stem cells can divide indefinitely and have the potential to develop into many types of tissue. Research on these cells is essential to one of the most intriguing medical frontiers, regenerative medicine. It also raises a host of difficult ethical issues and has sparked great public interest and controversy. This book offers a foundation for thinking about the many issues involved in human embryonic stem cell research. It considers questions about the nature of human life, the limits of intervention into human cells and tissues, and the meaning of our corporeal existence. The fact that stem cells may be derived from living embryos that are destroyed in the process or from aborted fetuses ties the discussion of stem cell research to the ongoing debates on abortion. In addition to these issues, the essays in the book touch on broader questions such as who should approve controversial research and what constitutes human dignity, respect, and justice. The book contains contributions from the Ethics Advisory Board of the Geron Coroporation; excerpts from expert testimony given before the National Bioethics Advisory Commission, which helped shape recent National Institutes of Health policy; and original analytical essays on the implications of this research. Pros and Cons Debates over the ethics of embryonic blastocysts. Latest Developments The most recent research has shown that there are many options available other than working with embryonic stem cells. Stem cells can be obtained from cord blood or derived by manipulating differentiated cells (i.e. skin cells) to revert them to a pluripotent state. These are alternatives that may help broaden the acceptance of stem cell research. Background In November 1998 the first published research paper reported that stem cells could be taken from human embryos. Subsequent research led to the ability to maintain undifferentiated stem cell lines (pluripotent cells) and techniques for differentiating them into cells specific to various tissues and organs. The debates over the ethics of stem cell research began almost immediately in 1999, despite reports that stem cells cannot grow into complete organisms. In 2000 – 2001, governments worldwide were beginning to draft proposals and guidelines in an effort to control stem cell research and the handling of embryonic tissues, and reach universal policies to prevent â€Å"brain-drains† (emigration of top scientists) between countries. The CIHR (Canadian Institute of Health Sciences) drafted a list of recommendations for stem cell research in 2001. The Clinton administration drafted guidelines for stem cell research in 2000, but Clinton left office prior to them being released. The Bush government has had to deal with the issue throughout his administration. Australia, Germany, UK and other countries have also formulated policies. (Continued from Page 1) Pros The therapeutic cloning. Stem cells provide huge potential for finding treatments and cures to a vast array of diseases including different cancers, diabetes, spinal cord injuries, Alzheimers, MS, Huntingtons, Parkinsons and more. There is endless potential for scientists to learn about human growth and cell development from studying stem cells. Use of adult-derived stem cells, from blood, cord blood, skin and other tissues, known as IPSCs, has been demonstrated to be effective for treating different diseases in animal models. Umbilical-cord-derived stem cells (obtained from the cord blood) have also been isolated and utilized for various experimental treatments. Another option is use of uniparental stem cells. Although these cells lines have some disadvantages or shortcomings compared to embryonic cell lines (they are shorter-lived), there is vast potential if enough money is invested in researching them further, and they are not technically considered individual living beings by pro-life advocates. Cons Use of embryonic stem cells for reasearch involves the destruction of blastocysts formed from laboratory-fertilized human eggs. For those who believe that life begins at conception, the blastocyst is a human life and to destroy it is unacceptable and immoral. This seems to be the only controversial issue standing in the way of stem cell research in North America. Where It Stands In the summer of 2006 President Bush stood his ground on the issue of stem cell research and vetoed a bill passed by the Senate that would have expanded federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Currently, American federal funding can only go to research on stem cells from existing (already destroyed) embryos. Similarly, in Canada, as of 2002, scientists cannot create or clone embryos for research but must used existing embryos discarded by couples. The UK allows embryonic stem cell cloning. Use of stem cell lines from alternative non-embryonic sources has received more attention in recent years and has already been demonstrated as a successful option for treatment of certain diseases. For example, adult stem cells can be used to replace blood-cell-forming cells killed during chemotherapy in bone marrow transplant patients. Biotech companies such as ACT are researching techniques for cellular reprogramming of adult cells, use of amnionic fluid, or stem cell extraction techniques that do not damage the embryo, that also provide alternatives for obtaining viable stem cell lines. Out of necessity, the research on these alternatives is catching up with embryonic stem cell research and, with sufficient funding, other solutions might be found that are acceptable to everyone. On March 9, 2009, President Obama overturned Bushs ruling, allowing US Federal funding to go to embryonic stem cell research. However, the stipulation applies that normal NIH policies on data sharing must be followed. Despite the progress being made in other areas of stem cell research, using pluripotent cells from other sources, many American scientists were putting pressure on the government to allow their participation and compete with the Europeans. However, many people are still strongly opposed Research Ethics and Stem Cells Stem cells show potential for many different areas of health and medical research, and studying them can help us understand how they transform into the dazzling array of specialized cells that make us what we are. Some of the most serious medical conditions, such as cancer and birth defects, are caused by problems that occur somewhere in this process. A better understanding of normal cell development will allow us to understand and perhaps correct the errors that cause these medical conditions. Research on one kind of stem cell—human embryonic stem cells—has generated much interest and public debate. Pluripotent stem cells (cells that can develop into many different cell types of the body) are isolated from human embryos that are a few days old. Pluripotent stem cell lines have also been developed from fetal tissue (older than 8 weeks of development). As science and technology continue to advance, so do ethical viewpoints surrounding these developments. It is important to educate and explore the issues, scientifically and ethically. The discovery, isolation, and culturing of human embryonic stem cells has been described as one of the most significant breakthroughs in biomedicine of the century.1 This description would be warranted by virtue of the biological uniqueness of these cells alone—their ability to self-renew infinitely while retaining a remarkable capacity to differentiate into any form of cell tissue. But as well as this, the culturing of embryonic stem cells holds tremendous potential for the development of new forms of regenerative medicine to treat debilitating or fatal conditions that would not otherwise be curable.2 It is somewhat of an irony that the discovery of cells with such a tremendous potential for improving and prolonging our own lives, should bring with it some of the most trenchant and intractable questions about the value of life itself. The harvesting of embryonic stem cells results in the destruction of the embryos from which they are harvested. It results, in other words, in the expiration of the very beginnings of a possible human life. Issues about the value of life emerge here in perhaps their most stark and poignant form in the question of whether life for those already existing should be improved at the seeming expense of a possible human life that has just come into being. Needless to say, what the most ethically justified response is to this sort of question is far from obvious. It is not immediately apparent, either, just what should count as the appropriate criteria for assessing possible responses to it. Indeed, it is even contentious as to what the right concepts and terminology are for framing the central questions. What is clear, though, is that it would be remiss to fail to engage with these questions in a manner that is commensurate with their depth, complexity and importance. With due regard to that, the following discussion provides a brief overview of some of the core ethical issues arising from the Research Involving Embryos Bill 2002 and to some extent the Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002.3 The public debate has focused mostly on ethical problems associated with the destruction of embryos (in the case of the first Bill), and with the creation of cloned human embryos (in the case of the second Bill). The current paper will confine its primary focus to the first set of problems, since many of the salient ethical issues about cloning will arise, as it turns out, in connection with embryonic stem cell research.4 1 Key Ethical Issues in Embryonic Stem Cell Research The paper takes most of the major ethical concerns in the debate to be encompassed by the following core questions: †¢ What, in principle, is ethically at issue with destructive embryo research? †¢ What is important when it comes to judging the value of the potential consequences of destructive embryo research? †¢ In what does the value of the human embryo consist? †¢ Does the means by which an embryo expires—whether it is destroyed or merely succumbs—make a moral difference? †¢ Is there anything morally worse about using embryos created for research purposes compared to using existing excess or surplus ART (assisted reproductive treatment) embryos? The purpose of the following discussion is to clarify some relevant moral and conceptual distinctions connected with these core questions, and to clarify the basic structure of the major views and argument themes that have been developed by philosophers, bioethicists and theologians in response to these questions. Of course, in their more fully expanded form these distinctions and arguments will involve subtleties and complexities that are beyond the limited scope of this paper to address. Nonetheless, the discussion here will hopefully give an impression of where some of those further complexities and subtleties might lie. The Basic Ethical Problem The possibility of destructive embryo research, particularly embryonic stem cell research, presents us with a moral problem because it appears to bring into tension two fundamental moral principles that we esteem very highly: one principle enjoins the prevention or alleviation of suffering, and the other enjoins us to respect the value of human life. As noted, the harvesting and culturing of embryonic stem cells has considerable potential to bring about remarkable potential benefits in the way of alleviating debilitating medical conditions. So, it satisfies the first principle to a very great degree. On the other hand, there is a case to be made that the harvesting of human embryonic stem cells violates the second principle in that it results in the destruction of human life with value (i.e. human embryos). Accordingly, both principles apparently cannot simultaneously be respected in the case of embryonic stem cell research. The question then is which principle ought to be given precedence in this conflict situation. Should we give more weight to the first, and permit destructive embryonic stem cell research because of its remarkable potential benefits? Or should we give more weight to the second, and prohibit destructive embryonic research because it violates respect for the value of the 2 Key Ethical Issues in Embryonic Stem Cell Research embryo as the very beginnings of a possible human life? This, at bottom, is the ethical problem generated by destructive embryo research. Crude as it may sound, responding to this problem calls for a moral calculation—a decision about how the positive value of destructive embryo research is to be weighted, from a moral point of view, in comparison to the negative value (or disvalue) of destroying embryos. Whatever way that calculation is done, it is important to get a clear idea of what moral weight each side of the equation has. This will involve: (i) developing a sound and accurate picture of what the real value is of the benefits of embryonic research, and (ii) clarifying what the value of embryos might consist in, and what, if anything, may be wrong with destroying them. The rest of this paper outlines some of the ethical arguments and philosophical considerations that have been considered relevant to these two matters. Evaluating the Benefits of Embryonic Stem Cell Research Evaluating the beneficial consequences of embryonic stem cell research is not straightforward. There are complexities associated with assessing how realistic the potential of the benefits is, how alternatives with different combinations of benefits and drawbacks are to be compared, and factoring in all of the sometimes overlooked possible consequences of embryonic research. Judging the Benefits Most attention has centred on the medical potential of embryonic stem cell research and cultivation, particularly somatic gene therapy for genetic disorders5, and the generation of replacement tissues and organs for transplant.6 There is no doubt that these outcomes, once realised, would be highly valuable. It is important to keep in mind, however, that currently these benefits are potential ones. A sound evaluation of stem cell research needs to take account of the likelihood of achieving its beneficial outcomes. In matters of science, and particularly, in areas that are newly developing and comparatively uncharted (such as embryonic stem cell research), it is sometimes difficult to settle on those probabilities with complete confidence. It is the nature of scientific discoveries and progress, that they are not easily predicted. Both advances and impediments to advancement can arise unexpectedly. This uncertainty about how real the potential benefits are, needs to be kept in mind wh en weighing and evaluating the consequences of embryonic stem cell research. 3 Key Ethical Issues in Embryonic Stem Cell Research Comparing the Benefits and Harms of Alternatives to Embryonic Stem Cell Research Adult Stem Cell Research Whether destructive embryonic stem cell research is the right thing to do or not, will partly depend on what the alternatives are, and how their particular benefits and drawbacks balance out. There is another research program involving adult stem cells that are present in and drawn from bone marrow, brain and gut, and other tissues. Some of these stem cells have a capacity to differentiate into a limited number of different cell types, such as blood cells, muscles and neurones (i.e., they are multipotent), but they have not been shown to be pluripotent (able to differentiate into any cell-type) in the way that embryonic stem cells are.7 This limitation means that adult stem cells offer more limited potential benefits in regenerative medicine and gene therapy, at least from the standpoint of our current understanding and available biotechnology. (But with that said, it is worth keeping in mind the points made above about the limited predictability of scientific advances, including the possibility of inducing adult stem cells to differentiate into a greater range of tissue types.) The harvesting and use of adult stem cells for biomedical purposes, however, avoids some of the ethically and biomedically problematic features of using embryonic stem cells. For a start, harvesting adult stem cells does not involve the destruction of embryos. The extent to which that is an advantage will depend on the extent to which that destruction turns out to be a bad thing, (and this will be taken up shortly). Tissues grown from adult stem cells will be immunologically compatible with the person from whom the stem cells are harvested. This means that those tissues can be transplanted into that person without fear of the body rejecting them. Tissues produced from embryonic stem cells for the purpose of regenerative therapy, however, are unlikely to be immunocompatible with the person for whom they are intended. The immunological properties of the tissue are set by the characteristics of whatever embryo the stem cells are derived from. Apart from the ongoing use of immunosuppressant drugs (with its possible serious side effects), two other potential solutions to this immunological limitation have been suggested. The first proposes a tissue bank with a sufficiently large number of different embryonic stem cell types to generate tissue that can be immunologically matched with different recipients. Hall points out, however, that this would require a huge number of human embryonic stem cell lines (the number being a matter of debate). Such an embryonic stem cell bank would be technically difficult and expensive to generate. The number of embryos that would be required to produce the cell bank would probably test public support †¦ 8. The second possible way of overcoming the problem of immunological incompatibility is through what has been called therapeutic cloning. In this process, the nucleus of a human oocyte or egg is removed and replaced with the nucleus of a cell taken from the body of the intended tissue re cipient. The new egg is induced to develop into an embryo, from which immunocompatible stem cells are harvested. The embryo will be a human embryonic clone of the recipient, with all his/her 4 Key Ethical Issues in Embryonic Stem Cell Research exact genetic characteristics. To date, there have only been one or two reported attempts at human cloning that have met with some success. A number of ethical objections have been expressed to therapeutic cloning, all revolving around the creating of an embryo, and moreover, the creating of an embryo for a use that will destroy it. These objections and arguments usually rely centrally on certain views about the value or moral status of the embryo, and these views will be outlined later in the paper. Whatever benefit the pluripotency of embryonic stem cells has in generating immunocompatible tissue, this benefit is likely to be possible only at the cost of having to engage in either the morally contentious practice of human (therapeutic) cloning, or the morally contentious practice of using (and destroying) a large number of embryos to create a sufficient range of embryonic stem cell lines for organ banks. It is especially important to note also, that if the Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002 is passed in its current form, and any kind of human cloning, including therapeutic cloning, is prohibited, there will be less opportunity to maximise the potential benefits of embryonic stem cell research, and embryonic stem cells will effectively have less of the advantage they would otherwise have over adult stem cells. The Inevitable Succumbing of Surplus IVF Embryos The Research Involving Embryos Bill 2002 only permits excess ART embryos existing before 5 April 2002 to be used for research purposes in accordance with a licensing regime. It is a fact about those embryos that they would likely expire or succumb anyway. They would still be destroyed, in other words, but through exposure to natural processes. On the face of it, this looks as if the harm or negative value involved in embryos expiring (whatever it might be) will be the same whether embryo research is allowed or not. In each case the embryo will expire. But this impression can be a little oversimplified. Some philosophers argue that there is a moral difference between acts and omissions, between actively killing something, and passively failing to intervene to stop its death from other causes (when one could have). Even though the outcome is the same in each case, it can be argued that there is something worse, or more morally culpable, about actively bringing about the death oneself. There are different views on what the moral difference between killing and letting die amounts to, and there are those who argue that there is no significant difference. Whichever way one comes out on this, it is not clear that the act-omission distinction maps neatly onto the particular embryo research scenario under discussion. Destroying surplus embryos through research is certainly an act. But so too, some would argue, is removing surplus embryos from the cold storage that keeps them from expiring. They would hold that this looks less like failing to intervene in independently occurring causal processes (that will lead to expiry), than an act that sets those processes in motion. If this is true, then the first impression above will stand. The harm or negative value involved in embryos expiring (whatever it might be) will be the same whether embryo research is allowed or not. 5 Key Ethical Issues in Embryonic Stem Cell Research Some would argue that there is an important logical upshot from this. If the only two alternatives in the circumstances (destroying embryos in research vs making them succumb) involve the same level of harm or disvalue or moral wrongness, but embryo research involves much greater benefits than the other alternative, then it could be argued, it makes sense to opt for the more beneficial embryo research. And indeed, some might construe that as a sufficient case for the moral preferability of that option. (This would change, of course, if the relevant alternatives change—if say, embryos were purpose created for research, which were not pre-existing and destined to be expired).9 Taking into Account all of the Relevant Benefits and Harms The embryonic stem cell debate has been pre-occupied with the biological and medical benefits or drawbacks of that research. Central as these certainly are, there are nonetheless other, often-overlooked non-medical impacts that may be important to factor in. Some of the major among these are possible social impacts including: De-sensitisation to the Destruction of Human Life It is argued by some10 that allowing the destruction of embryos to become an entrenched practice would serve to desensitise the scientific establishment, regulating bodies, and society in general, to the destruction of life in general. An increased social toleration of loss of life, it would be argued, may make it easier for society to accede to (currently) more controversial practices involving the ending of life such as, late term elective abortion, or withdrawal of treatment for severely disabled infants, for example. This slippery slope argument about potential consequences is based on empirical assumptions about the causes and effects of certain social attitudes, and needs to be assessed in the light of their plausibility. Contributions to Social Oppression One strong but minority strand of argument emphasises the impact that biotechnology has on broader social relationships. It has been argued that research should be evaluated not only in terms of its effects on the subjects of the experiment but also in terms of its connection with existing patterns of oppression and domination in society.11 There is a considerable body of writing that explores the impacts of new reproductive technologies (such as IVF) on the interests of women, particularly how those technologies might contribute to oppression.12 In the case of embryonic research, it is sometimes argued that women who donate ova or embryos are at risk of exploitation to the extent that male-dominated medical practice appropriates their reproductive labour for research and commercial benefits. Women are at risk, therefore, of being alienated from their reproductive labour. Moreover, it is argued that womens body parts are at risk of being commodified, and their acts of altruistic dona tion demeaned, if downstream users can develop commercial applications for stem cells developed from their ova and embryos.13 6 Key Ethical Issues in Embryonic Stem Cell Research The Value of the Embryo What weight does the other side of the moral equation have? What is wrong, if anything, with destroying embryos? If there is something wrong with that, is it sufficiently wrong to outweigh or override the benefits of embryo research, and therefore, render that research morally impermissible? Most of the leading arguments about the rightness or wrongness of destroying embryos are based on some view or other about the moral status of the embryo—how the embryo ought to be regarded or treated from the moral point of view, in virtue of it arguably possessing certain morally important intrinsic characteristics. It is relatively uncontroversial to describe embryos as human life (at its very beginnings). It is another thing, however, to describe embryos as persons, or human beings, or potential persons, etc. These descriptions are morally laden in that they carry with them potential implications about what can and cannot be done to embryos from a moral point of view. What those potential implications are, and indeed, whether they are sound ones, will depend on the nature and plausibility of the particular arguments that accompany each view on the moral status of the embryo. There are different views about this moral status. The leading views speculate that embryos have the status of: †¢ persons, or †¢ potential persons, or †¢ divine creations, or †¢ subjects of moral harm, or †¢ the beginnings of human life, with intrinsic value, or †¢ organic material with no more moral standing than other body parts. Each of these will be outlined in turn, with particular attention to (i) what the intrinsic moral characteristics are the each particular view attributes to embryos, and (ii) what these alleged characteristics or moral status are held to imply for our moral treatment of embryos—particularly whether they can ever or never be destroyed. Embryos have Status as Human Beings or Persons Some argue that, despite obvious physical differences between developed humans and embryos, the latter ought still be regarded as human beings or persons. One of the more plausible arguments to this effect relies on pointing out that there is no non-arbitrary point in the physical growth continuum between embryo and developed human that counts as a morally significant dividing line.14 Consequently, if individuals at their fully developed stage are human beings or persons, there is no non-arbitrary ground to think that they should not count as the same at their embryonic stage. Those who hold otherwise, 7 Key Ethical Issues in Embryonic Stem Cell Research according to this argument, need to indicate the developmental point at which personhood, or status as a human being, is acquired. The argument continues that it is a very deeply and commonly held view in modern liberal democracies that individual persons are deserving of especially strong moral respect in certain ways. All individuals, by virtue of being persons, have fundamental rights not to have their basic human interests interfered with in certain ways, and most importantly, their interest in the maintenance of their life and bodily integrity. If embryos have the status of persons, then they too will have rights not to be harmed or killed. Or, put in another way, we will be under a very strong moral obligation not to harm or kill embryos. Most prominent ethicists, philosophers and commentators would agree that persons have a status deserving of strong and special moral respect, protection and dignity. Many, however, would dispute that embryos should be considered persons or human beings in any serious sense. Even if one cannot point to an exact black and white dividing line in human development, it is still reasonable (they hold) to point to the fact that wherever the transition occurs, embryos do not have the psychological, physiological, emotional, intellectual properties that we tend to centrally associate with personhood. Embryos, particularly the very early pre-implantation blastocysts involved in stem cell research,15 do not, for instance, have consciousness, individuality, the ability to reason, or the ability to form courses of action in life and to choose between them.16 Embryos have Status as Potential Persons Some ethicists have a response to the foregoing objection to viewing embryos as persons. It is to concede that embryos do not currently exhibit these properties of personhood, but they will, if allowed to develop and fulfil their potential. To the extent that embryos are potential persons, it is argued, they ought to still be accorded the moral respect and dignity that personhood warrants. This potential person argument Ethical Questions in the Stem Cell Debate Ethical Questions in the Stem Cell Debate The Stem Cell Debate: Ethical Questions The story for the year 1997 was the sacred. We fear a Promethean blunder. We fear that our own human hubris will violate something sacred in our nature; and we fear that nature will retaliate with disaster. To protect ourselves from a possible Promethean blunder by science, we are tempted to stop further research with the commandment: thou shalt not play God! Then, during 1999, we opened the first few pages on chapter two of the cloning controversy story. I will refer to this chapter as the stem cell debate. The debate has only begun. What is not yet clear is just what needs to be debated. Perhaps nothing. Perhaps everything. What is clear is that the fallout from the cloning explosion is still lighting fires here and there. Whether or not the public will add stem cells to the fuel to make those fires burn hotter remains to be seen. Stem cells have become front page news in Australia, as well as in the United States and other countries. On February 4, 1999, the Australian National Academy of Science issued a position statement. Note the structure of Recommendation 1. Council considers that reproductive cloning to produce human fetuses is unethical and unsafe and should be prohibited.However, human cells derived from cloning techniques, from germ cells should not be precluded from use in approved research activities in cellular and developmental biology Here two things are put together. First, disapproval of reproductive cloning for the purposes of making children. Second, approval of research on human embryonic stem cells, approval even in the face of ethical squeamishness regarding embryo research. If this Australian statement is a barometer, we need to ask: what is the cultural weather forecast? What might be coming? In what follows it will be my task to report on the fast-moving frontier of stem cell research within the field of anthropology, agenda questions raised by science that need to be addressed by systematic theologians and public policy makers. I will ask more questions than I am ready to answer. Yet, I believe that such work invested in trying to formulate the relevant question (die Fragestellung) takes us more than just halfway toward a helpful answer. The Human Embryonic Stem Cell Debate Science, Ethics, and Public Policy Edited by Laurie Zoloth Human embryonic stem cells can divide indefinitely and have the potential to develop into many types of tissue. Research on these cells is essential to one of the most intriguing medical frontiers, regenerative medicine. It also raises a host of difficult ethical issues and has sparked great public interest and controversy. This book offers a foundation for thinking about the many issues involved in human embryonic stem cell research. It considers questions about the nature of human life, the limits of intervention into human cells and tissues, and the meaning of our corporeal existence. The fact that stem cells may be derived from living embryos that are destroyed in the process or from aborted fetuses ties the discussion of stem cell research to the ongoing debates on abortion. In addition to these issues, the essays in the book touch on broader questions such as who should approve controversial research and what constitutes human dignity, respect, and justice. The book contains contributions from the Ethics Advisory Board of the Geron Coroporation; excerpts from expert testimony given before the National Bioethics Advisory Commission, which helped shape recent National Institutes of Health policy; and original analytical essays on the implications of this research. Pros and Cons Debates over the ethics of embryonic blastocysts. Latest Developments The most recent research has shown that there are many options available other than working with embryonic stem cells. Stem cells can be obtained from cord blood or derived by manipulating differentiated cells (i.e. skin cells) to revert them to a pluripotent state. These are alternatives that may help broaden the acceptance of stem cell research. Background In November 1998 the first published research paper reported that stem cells could be taken from human embryos. Subsequent research led to the ability to maintain undifferentiated stem cell lines (pluripotent cells) and techniques for differentiating them into cells specific to various tissues and organs. The debates over the ethics of stem cell research began almost immediately in 1999, despite reports that stem cells cannot grow into complete organisms. In 2000 – 2001, governments worldwide were beginning to draft proposals and guidelines in an effort to control stem cell research and the handling of embryonic tissues, and reach universal policies to prevent â€Å"brain-drains† (emigration of top scientists) between countries. The CIHR (Canadian Institute of Health Sciences) drafted a list of recommendations for stem cell research in 2001. The Clinton administration drafted guidelines for stem cell research in 2000, but Clinton left office prior to them being released. The Bush government has had to deal with the issue throughout his administration. Australia, Germany, UK and other countries have also formulated policies. (Continued from Page 1) Pros The therapeutic cloning. Stem cells provide huge potential for finding treatments and cures to a vast array of diseases including different cancers, diabetes, spinal cord injuries, Alzheimers, MS, Huntingtons, Parkinsons and more. There is endless potential for scientists to learn about human growth and cell development from studying stem cells. Use of adult-derived stem cells, from blood, cord blood, skin and other tissues, known as IPSCs, has been demonstrated to be effective for treating different diseases in animal models. Umbilical-cord-derived stem cells (obtained from the cord blood) have also been isolated and utilized for various experimental treatments. Another option is use of uniparental stem cells. Although these cells lines have some disadvantages or shortcomings compared to embryonic cell lines (they are shorter-lived), there is vast potential if enough money is invested in researching them further, and they are not technically considered individual living beings by pro-life advocates. Cons Use of embryonic stem cells for reasearch involves the destruction of blastocysts formed from laboratory-fertilized human eggs. For those who believe that life begins at conception, the blastocyst is a human life and to destroy it is unacceptable and immoral. This seems to be the only controversial issue standing in the way of stem cell research in North America. Where It Stands In the summer of 2006 President Bush stood his ground on the issue of stem cell research and vetoed a bill passed by the Senate that would have expanded federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Currently, American federal funding can only go to research on stem cells from existing (already destroyed) embryos. Similarly, in Canada, as of 2002, scientists cannot create or clone embryos for research but must used existing embryos discarded by couples. The UK allows embryonic stem cell cloning. Use of stem cell lines from alternative non-embryonic sources has received more attention in recent years and has already been demonstrated as a successful option for treatment of certain diseases. For example, adult stem cells can be used to replace blood-cell-forming cells killed during chemotherapy in bone marrow transplant patients. Biotech companies such as ACT are researching techniques for cellular reprogramming of adult cells, use of amnionic fluid, or stem cell extraction techniques that do not damage the embryo, that also provide alternatives for obtaining viable stem cell lines. Out of necessity, the research on these alternatives is catching up with embryonic stem cell research and, with sufficient funding, other solutions might be found that are acceptable to everyone. On March 9, 2009, President Obama overturned Bushs ruling, allowing US Federal funding to go to embryonic stem cell research. However, the stipulation applies that normal NIH policies on data sharing must be followed. Despite the progress being made in other areas of stem cell research, using pluripotent cells from other sources, many American scientists were putting pressure on the government to allow their participation and compete with the Europeans. However, many people are still strongly opposed Research Ethics and Stem Cells Stem cells show potential for many different areas of health and medical research, and studying them can help us understand how they transform into the dazzling array of specialized cells that make us what we are. Some of the most serious medical conditions, such as cancer and birth defects, are caused by problems that occur somewhere in this process. A better understanding of normal cell development will allow us to understand and perhaps correct the errors that cause these medical conditions. Research on one kind of stem cell—human embryonic stem cells—has generated much interest and public debate. Pluripotent stem cells (cells that can develop into many different cell types of the body) are isolated from human embryos that are a few days old. Pluripotent stem cell lines have also been developed from fetal tissue (older than 8 weeks of development). As science and technology continue to advance, so do ethical viewpoints surrounding these developments. It is important to educate and explore the issues, scientifically and ethically. The discovery, isolation, and culturing of human embryonic stem cells has been described as one of the most significant breakthroughs in biomedicine of the century.1 This description would be warranted by virtue of the biological uniqueness of these cells alone—their ability to self-renew infinitely while retaining a remarkable capacity to differentiate into any form of cell tissue. But as well as this, the culturing of embryonic stem cells holds tremendous potential for the development of new forms of regenerative medicine to treat debilitating or fatal conditions that would not otherwise be curable.2 It is somewhat of an irony that the discovery of cells with such a tremendous potential for improving and prolonging our own lives, should bring with it some of the most trenchant and intractable questions about the value of life itself. The harvesting of embryonic stem cells results in the destruction of the embryos from which they are harvested. It results, in other words, in the expiration of the very beginnings of a possible human life. Issues about the value of life emerge here in perhaps their most stark and poignant form in the question of whether life for those already existing should be improved at the seeming expense of a possible human life that has just come into being. Needless to say, what the most ethically justified response is to this sort of question is far from obvious. It is not immediately apparent, either, just what should count as the appropriate criteria for assessing possible responses to it. Indeed, it is even contentious as to what the right concepts and terminology are for framing the central questions. What is clear, though, is that it would be remiss to fail to engage with these questions in a manner that is commensurate with their depth, complexity and importance. With due regard to that, the following discussion provides a brief overview of some of the core ethical issues arising from the Research Involving Embryos Bill 2002 and to some extent the Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002.3 The public debate has focused mostly on ethical problems associated with the destruction of embryos (in the case of the first Bill), and with the creation of cloned human embryos (in the case of the second Bill). The current paper will confine its primary focus to the first set of problems, since many of the salient ethical issues about cloning will arise, as it turns out, in connection with embryonic stem cell research.4 1 Key Ethical Issues in Embryonic Stem Cell Research The paper takes most of the major ethical concerns in the debate to be encompassed by the following core questions: †¢ What, in principle, is ethically at issue with destructive embryo research? †¢ What is important when it comes to judging the value of the potential consequences of destructive embryo research? †¢ In what does the value of the human embryo consist? †¢ Does the means by which an embryo expires—whether it is destroyed or merely succumbs—make a moral difference? †¢ Is there anything morally worse about using embryos created for research purposes compared to using existing excess or surplus ART (assisted reproductive treatment) embryos? The purpose of the following discussion is to clarify some relevant moral and conceptual distinctions connected with these core questions, and to clarify the basic structure of the major views and argument themes that have been developed by philosophers, bioethicists and theologians in response to these questions. Of course, in their more fully expanded form these distinctions and arguments will involve subtleties and complexities that are beyond the limited scope of this paper to address. Nonetheless, the discussion here will hopefully give an impression of where some of those further complexities and subtleties might lie. The Basic Ethical Problem The possibility of destructive embryo research, particularly embryonic stem cell research, presents us with a moral problem because it appears to bring into tension two fundamental moral principles that we esteem very highly: one principle enjoins the prevention or alleviation of suffering, and the other enjoins us to respect the value of human life. As noted, the harvesting and culturing of embryonic stem cells has considerable potential to bring about remarkable potential benefits in the way of alleviating debilitating medical conditions. So, it satisfies the first principle to a very great degree. On the other hand, there is a case to be made that the harvesting of human embryonic stem cells violates the second principle in that it results in the destruction of human life with value (i.e. human embryos). Accordingly, both principles apparently cannot simultaneously be respected in the case of embryonic stem cell research. The question then is which principle ought to be given precedence in this conflict situation. Should we give more weight to the first, and permit destructive embryonic stem cell research because of its remarkable potential benefits? Or should we give more weight to the second, and prohibit destructive embryonic research because it violates respect for the value of the 2 Key Ethical Issues in Embryonic Stem Cell Research embryo as the very beginnings of a possible human life? This, at bottom, is the ethical problem generated by destructive embryo research. Crude as it may sound, responding to this problem calls for a moral calculation—a decision about how the positive value of destructive embryo research is to be weighted, from a moral point of view, in comparison to the negative value (or disvalue) of destroying embryos. Whatever way that calculation is done, it is important to get a clear idea of what moral weight each side of the equation has. This will involve: (i) developing a sound and accurate picture of what the real value is of the benefits of embryonic research, and (ii) clarifying what the value of embryos might consist in, and what, if anything, may be wrong with destroying them. The rest of this paper outlines some of the ethical arguments and philosophical considerations that have been considered relevant to these two matters. Evaluating the Benefits of Embryonic Stem Cell Research Evaluating the beneficial consequences of embryonic stem cell research is not straightforward. There are complexities associated with assessing how realistic the potential of the benefits is, how alternatives with different combinations of benefits and drawbacks are to be compared, and factoring in all of the sometimes overlooked possible consequences of embryonic research. Judging the Benefits Most attention has centred on the medical potential of embryonic stem cell research and cultivation, particularly somatic gene therapy for genetic disorders5, and the generation of replacement tissues and organs for transplant.6 There is no doubt that these outcomes, once realised, would be highly valuable. It is important to keep in mind, however, that currently these benefits are potential ones. A sound evaluation of stem cell research needs to take account of the likelihood of achieving its beneficial outcomes. In matters of science, and particularly, in areas that are newly developing and comparatively uncharted (such as embryonic stem cell research), it is sometimes difficult to settle on those probabilities with complete confidence. It is the nature of scientific discoveries and progress, that they are not easily predicted. Both advances and impediments to advancement can arise unexpectedly. This uncertainty about how real the potential benefits are, needs to be kept in mind wh en weighing and evaluating the consequences of embryonic stem cell research. 3 Key Ethical Issues in Embryonic Stem Cell Research Comparing the Benefits and Harms of Alternatives to Embryonic Stem Cell Research Adult Stem Cell Research Whether destructive embryonic stem cell research is the right thing to do or not, will partly depend on what the alternatives are, and how their particular benefits and drawbacks balance out. There is another research program involving adult stem cells that are present in and drawn from bone marrow, brain and gut, and other tissues. Some of these stem cells have a capacity to differentiate into a limited number of different cell types, such as blood cells, muscles and neurones (i.e., they are multipotent), but they have not been shown to be pluripotent (able to differentiate into any cell-type) in the way that embryonic stem cells are.7 This limitation means that adult stem cells offer more limited potential benefits in regenerative medicine and gene therapy, at least from the standpoint of our current understanding and available biotechnology. (But with that said, it is worth keeping in mind the points made above about the limited predictability of scientific advances, including the possibility of inducing adult stem cells to differentiate into a greater range of tissue types.) The harvesting and use of adult stem cells for biomedical purposes, however, avoids some of the ethically and biomedically problematic features of using embryonic stem cells. For a start, harvesting adult stem cells does not involve the destruction of embryos. The extent to which that is an advantage will depend on the extent to which that destruction turns out to be a bad thing, (and this will be taken up shortly). Tissues grown from adult stem cells will be immunologically compatible with the person from whom the stem cells are harvested. This means that those tissues can be transplanted into that person without fear of the body rejecting them. Tissues produced from embryonic stem cells for the purpose of regenerative therapy, however, are unlikely to be immunocompatible with the person for whom they are intended. The immunological properties of the tissue are set by the characteristics of whatever embryo the stem cells are derived from. Apart from the ongoing use of immunosuppressant drugs (with its possible serious side effects), two other potential solutions to this immunological limitation have been suggested. The first proposes a tissue bank with a sufficiently large number of different embryonic stem cell types to generate tissue that can be immunologically matched with different recipients. Hall points out, however, that this would require a huge number of human embryonic stem cell lines (the number being a matter of debate). Such an embryonic stem cell bank would be technically difficult and expensive to generate. The number of embryos that would be required to produce the cell bank would probably test public support †¦ 8. The second possible way of overcoming the problem of immunological incompatibility is through what has been called therapeutic cloning. In this process, the nucleus of a human oocyte or egg is removed and replaced with the nucleus of a cell taken from the body of the intended tissue re cipient. The new egg is induced to develop into an embryo, from which immunocompatible stem cells are harvested. The embryo will be a human embryonic clone of the recipient, with all his/her 4 Key Ethical Issues in Embryonic Stem Cell Research exact genetic characteristics. To date, there have only been one or two reported attempts at human cloning that have met with some success. A number of ethical objections have been expressed to therapeutic cloning, all revolving around the creating of an embryo, and moreover, the creating of an embryo for a use that will destroy it. These objections and arguments usually rely centrally on certain views about the value or moral status of the embryo, and these views will be outlined later in the paper. Whatever benefit the pluripotency of embryonic stem cells has in generating immunocompatible tissue, this benefit is likely to be possible only at the cost of having to engage in either the morally contentious practice of human (therapeutic) cloning, or the morally contentious practice of using (and destroying) a large number of embryos to create a sufficient range of embryonic stem cell lines for organ banks. It is especially important to note also, that if the Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002 is passed in its current form, and any kind of human cloning, including therapeutic cloning, is prohibited, there will be less opportunity to maximise the potential benefits of embryonic stem cell research, and embryonic stem cells will effectively have less of the advantage they would otherwise have over adult stem cells. The Inevitable Succumbing of Surplus IVF Embryos The Research Involving Embryos Bill 2002 only permits excess ART embryos existing before 5 April 2002 to be used for research purposes in accordance with a licensing regime. It is a fact about those embryos that they would likely expire or succumb anyway. They would still be destroyed, in other words, but through exposure to natural processes. On the face of it, this looks as if the harm or negative value involved in embryos expiring (whatever it might be) will be the same whether embryo research is allowed or not. In each case the embryo will expire. But this impression can be a little oversimplified. Some philosophers argue that there is a moral difference between acts and omissions, between actively killing something, and passively failing to intervene to stop its death from other causes (when one could have). Even though the outcome is the same in each case, it can be argued that there is something worse, or more morally culpable, about actively bringing about the death oneself. There are different views on what the moral difference between killing and letting die amounts to, and there are those who argue that there is no significant difference. Whichever way one comes out on this, it is not clear that the act-omission distinction maps neatly onto the particular embryo research scenario under discussion. Destroying surplus embryos through research is certainly an act. But so too, some would argue, is removing surplus embryos from the cold storage that keeps them from expiring. They would hold that this looks less like failing to intervene in independently occurring causal processes (that will lead to expiry), than an act that sets those processes in motion. If this is true, then the first impression above will stand. The harm or negative value involved in embryos expiring (whatever it might be) will be the same whether embryo research is allowed or not. 5 Key Ethical Issues in Embryonic Stem Cell Research Some would argue that there is an important logical upshot from this. If the only two alternatives in the circumstances (destroying embryos in research vs making them succumb) involve the same level of harm or disvalue or moral wrongness, but embryo research involves much greater benefits than the other alternative, then it could be argued, it makes sense to opt for the more beneficial embryo research. And indeed, some might construe that as a sufficient case for the moral preferability of that option. (This would change, of course, if the relevant alternatives change—if say, embryos were purpose created for research, which were not pre-existing and destined to be expired).9 Taking into Account all of the Relevant Benefits and Harms The embryonic stem cell debate has been pre-occupied with the biological and medical benefits or drawbacks of that research. Central as these certainly are, there are nonetheless other, often-overlooked non-medical impacts that may be important to factor in. Some of the major among these are possible social impacts including: De-sensitisation to the Destruction of Human Life It is argued by some10 that allowing the destruction of embryos to become an entrenched practice would serve to desensitise the scientific establishment, regulating bodies, and society in general, to the destruction of life in general. An increased social toleration of loss of life, it would be argued, may make it easier for society to accede to (currently) more controversial practices involving the ending of life such as, late term elective abortion, or withdrawal of treatment for severely disabled infants, for example. This slippery slope argument about potential consequences is based on empirical assumptions about the causes and effects of certain social attitudes, and needs to be assessed in the light of their plausibility. Contributions to Social Oppression One strong but minority strand of argument emphasises the impact that biotechnology has on broader social relationships. It has been argued that research should be evaluated not only in terms of its effects on the subjects of the experiment but also in terms of its connection with existing patterns of oppression and domination in society.11 There is a considerable body of writing that explores the impacts of new reproductive technologies (such as IVF) on the interests of women, particularly how those technologies might contribute to oppression.12 In the case of embryonic research, it is sometimes argued that women who donate ova or embryos are at risk of exploitation to the extent that male-dominated medical practice appropriates their reproductive labour for research and commercial benefits. Women are at risk, therefore, of being alienated from their reproductive labour. Moreover, it is argued that womens body parts are at risk of being commodified, and their acts of altruistic dona tion demeaned, if downstream users can develop commercial applications for stem cells developed from their ova and embryos.13 6 Key Ethical Issues in Embryonic Stem Cell Research The Value of the Embryo What weight does the other side of the moral equation have? What is wrong, if anything, with destroying embryos? If there is something wrong with that, is it sufficiently wrong to outweigh or override the benefits of embryo research, and therefore, render that research morally impermissible? Most of the leading arguments about the rightness or wrongness of destroying embryos are based on some view or other about the moral status of the embryo—how the embryo ought to be regarded or treated from the moral point of view, in virtue of it arguably possessing certain morally important intrinsic characteristics. It is relatively uncontroversial to describe embryos as human life (at its very beginnings). It is another thing, however, to describe embryos as persons, or human beings, or potential persons, etc. These descriptions are morally laden in that they carry with them potential implications about what can and cannot be done to embryos from a moral point of view. What those potential implications are, and indeed, whether they are sound ones, will depend on the nature and plausibility of the particular arguments that accompany each view on the moral status of the embryo. There are different views about this moral status. The leading views speculate that embryos have the status of: †¢ persons, or †¢ potential persons, or †¢ divine creations, or †¢ subjects of moral harm, or †¢ the beginnings of human life, with intrinsic value, or †¢ organic material with no more moral standing than other body parts. Each of these will be outlined in turn, with particular attention to (i) what the intrinsic moral characteristics are the each particular view attributes to embryos, and (ii) what these alleged characteristics or moral status are held to imply for our moral treatment of embryos—particularly whether they can ever or never be destroyed. Embryos have Status as Human Beings or Persons Some argue that, despite obvious physical differences between developed humans and embryos, the latter ought still be regarded as human beings or persons. One of the more plausible arguments to this effect relies on pointing out that there is no non-arbitrary point in the physical growth continuum between embryo and developed human that counts as a morally significant dividing line.14 Consequently, if individuals at their fully developed stage are human beings or persons, there is no non-arbitrary ground to think that they should not count as the same at their embryonic stage. Those who hold otherwise, 7 Key Ethical Issues in Embryonic Stem Cell Research according to this argument, need to indicate the developmental point at which personhood, or status as a human being, is acquired. The argument continues that it is a very deeply and commonly held view in modern liberal democracies that individual persons are deserving of especially strong moral respect in certain ways. All individuals, by virtue of being persons, have fundamental rights not to have their basic human interests interfered with in certain ways, and most importantly, their interest in the maintenance of their life and bodily integrity. If embryos have the status of persons, then they too will have rights not to be harmed or killed. Or, put in another way, we will be under a very strong moral obligation not to harm or kill embryos. Most prominent ethicists, philosophers and commentators would agree that persons have a status deserving of strong and special moral respect, protection and dignity. Many, however, would dispute that embryos should be considered persons or human beings in any serious sense. Even if one cannot point to an exact black and white dividing line in human development, it is still reasonable (they hold) to point to the fact that wherever the transition occurs, embryos do not have the psychological, physiological, emotional, intellectual properties that we tend to centrally associate with personhood. Embryos, particularly the very early pre-implantation blastocysts involved in stem cell research,15 do not, for instance, have consciousness, individuality, the ability to reason, or the ability to form courses of action in life and to choose between them.16 Embryos have Status as Potential Persons Some ethicists have a response to the foregoing objection to viewing embryos as persons. It is to concede that embryos do not currently exhibit these properties of personhood, but they will, if allowed to develop and fulfil their potential. To the extent that embryos are potential persons, it is argued, they ought to still be accorded the moral respect and dignity that personhood warrants. This potential person argument

Analysis of The Story of an Hour by Kate Chopin :: The Story of an Hour Kate Chopin

  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  In "The Story of an Hour" Kate Chopin tells the story of a woman, Mrs. Mallard whose husband is thought to be dead. Throughout the story Chopin describes the emotions Mrs. Mallard felt about the news of her husband's death. However, the strong emotions she felt were not despair or sadness, they were something else. In a way she was relieved more than she was upset, and almost rejoiced in the thought of her husband no longer living. In using different literary elements throughout the story, Chopin conveys this to us on more than one occasion.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  In the third paragraph of the story, Chopin describes Mrs. Mallard as she goes into her room and sits on an armchair. Chopin describes how Mallard ?sank pressed down by a physical exhaustion that haunted the body and seemed to reach into her soul?. In this point of the story Chopin uses symbolism connecting Mrs. Mallard and the chair, the chair representing the death of her husband and her feelings about it. How it was ?a comfortable roomy chair?, she is showing us how Mrs. Mallard was ?comfortable? with her husband?s death and now felt she had room to exist freely. This is supported by the lines ?she would live for herself now. There would be no powerful will bending her in the blind?? This demonstrating to the reader that she felt controlled by her husband, and that she would no longer bet tied down to the ways of the time, which were men control women. This also supported by Jennifer Hicks in her overview of the story which states " Later, when we see Mrs. Mall ard "warm and relaxed", we realize that problem with her heart is that her marriage has not allowed her to "live for herself"."   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Another example of how Mrs. Mallard was more uplifted than brought down by the news of her husband?s death is the description of the window. As Mrs. Mallard looks out Chopin explains ?she could see in the open square before her house the tops of trees that were all a quiver with new life?. This is telling the reader about the new life that Mrs. Mallard can see in the distance that symbolizes the new life she saw that lay ahead of her now that she was free of her husband. This thought being supported by Hicks in saying "The revalation of freedom occurs in the bedroom"

Miracles – Philosophy

Philosophy- â€Å"A belief in miracles leads to the concept of a god who favors some but not all his creation† The problem with miracles is that it cannot be properly defined which means there is no absolute meaning for a meaning, instead my philosophers have attempted to define miracles in their own way. In these definition they are usually for or against the existence of miracles, for example take two contrasting definitions Ward and Hume. Ward says miracles are events which god intervenes because he only knows the consequences of the action.On the other hand, Hume is a philosopher who is totally against the idea of miracles, he says miracles do not exist because they violate the laws of nature. Knowing this, god cannot intervene because he would violate the laws of nature, humans have faith in experience and trust the laws this would be lost if miracles were deemed true. Another philosopher would had a problem with miracles was a man called Wiles. He basically said, to say god carries out these miraculous events is to say god is guilty of obituary and partisan.Any event where the natural flow is violated for a certain people raises the issue of fairness and consistency. Wiles also said the two idea of having an all loving god and the existence of miracles are two incompatible ideas so its easier to believe that god is all loving and reject the idea of miracles. If this was in reverse and miracles existed and god could intervene then why didn't he intervene is horrific events such as Auschwitz or Hiroshima instead he saves one persons life, this seems unfair and a contradiction of an all loving god.As for biblical miracles Wiles said we must take them in a symbolic sense rather than a literal sense. A strength of Wiles it that allows educated believers to keep faith with god and uphold their faith in natural laws. Many people agreed with what Wiles was saying for example a man called Bultman agreed that the miracles explained in the bible are not there to take literal, he says we get the true message behind the miracle if we demythologize them.For example he turned water into wine to prevent the embarrassment of the hosts which shows his care and wisdom. To believe that god favors some more than others through the existence of miracles is wrong, who says its god that these events originates? We have no evidence to suggest this, just because we cannot find this would doesn't mean we have to point it to god. Holland was another philosopher who didn't believe in the concept of miracles, well the name miracle he thought that they were more of a coincidence.He used the analogy of the train, what is some one was stuck on the track and the train had stopped right in front of the person, some people may call this a miracle but when we know the full picture someone in the train may have accidentally pressed the emergency stop or the driver could have passed out. So the concept of the whole miracles thing may just be one big coincidence. L ooking at Holland’s view it would make god innocent of being arbitrary and partisan, this is because these events are just coincidences it has nothing to do with god.As mentioned earlier, Hume was a man who rejected the idea of miracles due to being a violation of the laws of nature. Hume believes strongly in experiences and what we gain from them, as for this situation, the laws are something we have learnt about and follow. So when something happens that goes against these we deem them coming from god because we cannot define or justify them. All in all, Hume says the alert of miracles comes from the ignorant and barbarous nations. Knowing this, God would also be innocent because it is not god who intervenes so its not him which favors some and not others.There are events that are unexplained so they must come from some where, lets say for arguments sake tat they come from god. Us as humans are not on his level therefore we cannot say or he is this or that, he may have a re ason and we would find out when we die. All the events that are unexplained may paint a bigger picture but humans are outside of god knowledge and experience so we cannot really judge god. Irenaous was a philosopher who looked at the problem of evil, he would say god is being cruel to be kind and making humans into the image of god, this because events like miracles change people.To develop these emotions naturally have more significance than being drilled in at birth by god. Overall, I conclude that God does not favor some people over others. My reasons for this is because we cannot define miracle we can only speculate on what we think, for this reason how can we act upon such uncertainty? Also we cannot judge god because we have no knowledge of him or what he has planned, only him and him only knows the repercussions of his actions.

biotech food essays

biotech food essays This paper is about Biotechnology and its use in creating new food products. In researching this paper, I found there is a lot of information on this subject and a lot of debate on the creation of genetically altered food, medicine, crops, and more. I decided to do my paper on the genetically altered food part of the subject. I will discuss what biotechnology is, who is for it and who is against it, and what some of the ethical concerns are when it comes to growing genetically modified (GM) crops. THE FOOD BIOTECHNOLOGY DEBATE WHAT IS BIOTECHNOLOGY? Biotechnology is a broad term that applies to all living organisms. It is used for everything from microorganisms used to ferment beer to the most sophisticated forms of gene therapy. There are two categories of activities in biotechnology: the traditional methods and new scientific methods. The traditional methods are the way that farmers have been breeding their crop for centuries, cross breeding plants until finally some generation down the line is exactly the way they want it. The new methods are taking genes from different organisms and inserting them into another organism in the lab. This eliminates the waiting period to get the results they want, instead they get the exact plant they want right away. The United States government defines it as being "any technique that uses living organisms or parts of living organisms to (1) make or modify products, (2) improve plants or animals, or (3) develop microorganisms for specific uses. The purpose of biotechnology in foods is to cr eate better tasting and more nutritious foods, that have higher crop yields, and plants that are naturally protected from disease, insects, and drought. Through biotechnology scientist can develop plants with only specific beneficial traits and leave out the undesirable traits. They can change one characteristic or a few characteristics at a time with current technology. This enables them to release, for us...

Chocoberry Ideation Essay Essay Example

Chocoberry Ideation Essay Essay Example Chocoberry Ideation Essay Essay Chocoberry Ideation Essay Essay What techniques will you suggest to CB to bring forth thoughts that can be developed into feasible constructs? Since this is CB’s first raid into consumer merchandises I would suggest that CB use all locales available to bring forth thoughts that can be used to develop into successful merchandises. The diagram given in the figure at the start of portion II of the trial book shows five mobs: Technology End userTeamOther insidersOther Foreigners Of the many methods for ideation offered in modern-day literature. which represents the best for CB in this state of affairs. and why? The technique I would urge CB usage in this state of affairs is to carry on a job analysis. The CEO would wish the research squad to make a cacao merchandise that will hold wellness benefits. Uniting this demand with a solution that would work out a client job would increase the success rate of a new merchandise. The ground job analysis is recommended: â€Å"As an advertisement bureau executive one time said†¦problem list is far better forecaster than want list. † Since jobs are non merchandise specific. CB can bring forth more thoughts that can be used for merchandise development. Additionally. I would suggest that CB work with external resources since CB does non hold any experience in merchandise development or production for consumers. Who might be selected to execute the ideation. and why? First of all. a new merchandise development squad must be created and assigned the undertaking to work with internal and external resources. To execute the ideation. all internal and external should be together to brainstorm and concept showing. The new merchandise development squad and the fabrication squad must be together. They can brainstorm and acquire a construct. so present the thoughts to the CEO. In this instance. both squads know that the mark group is grownups who wish to indulge in cocoa. but who have been concerned with the wellness facets. Fabrication must be present since there was a concern that non all merchandise thoughts can be produced. Having screened the thoughts to a choice few. how are constructs generated from the thoughts. and when? The construct should be generated by concentrating on the benefits of the new merchandises bring to the consumer. Such that the new cocoa merchandise will hold wellness benefits that was late discovered. Idea Evaluation ( 50 points ) Once the thoughts are generated. how might they be evaluated to maximise the figure that has the greatest possible and to minimise the chance of rejecting first-class thoughts? Enumerate the standards that might be applied to suitably measure the thoughts and to finally rank them harmonizing to their possible for CB. Since the job analysis was suggested as method for ideation. the undermentioned stairss needs to take topographic point: Determine the appropriate merchandise or activity class for geographic expedition. Identify a group of heavy merchandise users or activity participants Gather from theses heavy merchandise users or participants a set of jobs associated with the current merchandise Who would carry on the rating and why? I would suggest an out side adviser with extended experience in the consumer merchandises in general. and the cocoa industry in peculiar. Concentrating on the choice few constructs. what are the appraising standards that might be used to insulate the one or two that should be recommended for farther development? I propose that a spread analysis be conducted which will place the spread and carry through the spread with new merchandise. This will accomplish two things: The new merchandise will non vie with bing merchandises in which CB will straight vie with its bing clients. The new merchandise will carry through a spread that exists in the cocoa for wellness class of merchandise. Who would carry on the construct rating and with what tools?