The Bare Bones of Stem Cell Research

"Stem Cells." The New York Times. The New York Times Company, 2 May 2011. Web. 11  
            October 2011.

In "Stem Cells," the New York Times explains the basics of stem cell research and addresses a few of the controversies that have surrounded it. It also mentions legislation that has been passed to either ban or encourage stem cell research.

The author's intended audience is simply anyone who wants to know more about stem cell research. This article is mostly informative, so its main intent is to explain the background information on stem cell research.

Even though this article is short, it does a great job of covering a lot of ground. It discusses three different main points - what stem cell research is, why it is controversial, and the things people have done to either prevent or promote it.

The article explains that stem cells are cells that have the capability of developing into any other kinds of cells. It builds off this information by explaining that stem cells can be used to "replace or repair damaged cells, and have the potential to drastically change the treatment of conditions like cancer, Alzheimer's, and Parkinson's disease..."

The topic then shifts to the controversey surrounding the use of fertility clinic embryos for research. This is seen as immoral because many people see the destruction of embryos as murder.

The article draws off this information by talking about legislature that has been passed concerning stem cell research. It begins with the Dickey-Wicker amendment of 1996. This amendment states that tax money cannot be used to create embryos for the sole purpose of destruction. It then moves to the restrictive semi-support stem cell research received from the Bush administration and the full-on support shown by the Obama administration. It goes on to describe various court battles that are still being fought and debated.

The author of "Stem Cells" shows absolutely no bias. This article does a great job of representing both sides without forming any kind of opinion. For example, it states, "Few quarrel with predictions of the awesome potential stem cell research holds." But it also says that some people see this research as inhumane. These are two conflicting viewpoints, but the author does not agree with either of them. It is simply stated.

This article could really help me on my research paper because there are no biases and it does a good job of supplying solid background information that I will be able to draw off of. For example, thanks to this article I will know to look for more articles concerning legislation related to stem cell research. It provides a good "skeleton" of sorts for me to elaborate on.