The Trouble with Carbon

Photo Credit: (c) The European Commission Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability 

Currently, carbon emissions battle terrestrial carbon sinks for first place as the leading cause of climate change (6). The battle continues to escalate with the discovery of natural terrestrial carbon sinks all over the globe by NASA satellites (6). Natural terrestrial carbon sinks accumulate on land instead of being absorbed by plants or the atmosphere (2). If disturbed, the collections of carbon will spike the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as well as global warming (6). With growing human populations and areas of arable land now home to natural carbon sinks, producing enough food to feed the world poses a challenge (6). Human populations must now consider other methods of producing food that not only decreases carbon output into the atmosphere, but is sustainable, ecologically/regionally appropriate, and replenishes carbon into the earth’s soil and water systems.

As the human population exponentially grows it is crucial for survival to develop more sustainable systems for food production. Cuba stands out as a country with strong government support for organic agriculture (5). The collapse of the Soviet Union interrupted the influx of pesticides and fossil fuels which Cuba relied heavily upon for agriculture which forced Cuba to rethink it’s production from an organic standpoint (5). As Cuba embraced organic farming agriculture became the leading industry (5). All over Havana crops are grown on abandoned lots and rooftops (5). Cuba’s tropical climate does provide an environment that is easier to use organic farming techniques than other more harsh climates in the world, but much can be gleaned from the Cuban model. With the ever increasing risk of excessive carbon being released into the atmosphere from terrestrial carbon sinks, conventional, large scale, intensive farming is not a long term answer.

While farming areas with terrestrial carbon sinks presents the risk of releasing large amounts carbon, farming is possible and even suggested by environmental experts (1). Various methods are used for farming carbon rich land including conservation tillage, no-till farming , agroforestry, and the use of cover crops such as lentils or clover (1). These methods are intended to disturb the carbon rich soil as little as possible. In the instance of conservation tillage, farmers leave crop residue on the field which acts as a protective barrier (1). With no-till farming soil is left undisturbed despite growing crops on a particular plot (1). Agroforestry combines shrubs and trees with traditional crops to enrich the soil and prevent soil erosion (1, 3). Although these tactics can contribute to the carbon cycle, they also help create richer soil by replenishing nutrients as well as prevent soil erosion (3). These alternate methods of farming work with the land to replenish organic soil carbon, cut down on water pollution because the carbon under the surface acts as a bio-membrane (2). The most positive outcome of using these farming practices in many underdeveloped and developing countries is the ability to create more food for their population, making a particular country self sustaining, and guaranteeing the longer use of land for food production (3).

When considering environmental issues, one must also consider the economic cost of such actions. The Koyoto Protocol intended to reduce the negative economic impacts of carbon emissions with the creation of “Carbon credits” (4). The premise of a carbon credit is a country is given a greenhouse gas emission allowance that they can sell or trade, thus carbon credits have become a commodity in the world economy (4). By storing carbon, even natural terrestrial carbon sinks, many developing countries have the potential to earn an income by selling their carbon credits to businesses looking to lessen their carbon footprints (4). Farmers are getting in on the action too by offering up their land for storage which comes with the double benefit of helping to replenish soil and increase revenue (3, 4). The carbon business is booming.

The world has a diverse array of counties and the answers for producing food will be as diverse. Part of the solution needs to include people creating food locally in a sustainable fashion while replenishing the systems they tax for food production. With the growing population of natural terrestrial carbon sinks across the globe, the human population needs to start taking the precautions to guarantee food production will be able to continue without drastically changing the climate. It’s time for a sustainable future.

Works Cited

1. Govaerts, B. "Conservation Agriculture and Soil Carbon Sequestration: Between Myth and Farmer Reality." Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences. no. 3 (2009): 97 - 122. 10.1080/07352680902776358 (accessed February 4, 2014).

2. Lal, R. "Soil Carbon Sequestration Impacts on Global Climate Change and Food Security." Science. no. 5677 (2004): 1623-1627. 10.1126/science.1097396 (accessed February 4, 2014).

3. Lal, R. "Soil Carbon Sequestration to Mitigate Climate Change and Advance Food Security." Soil Science. no. 12 (2007): 943-956. 10.1097/ss.0b013e31815cc498 (accessed February 4, 2014).

4. Lewandrowski, Jan. "Economics of Sequestering Carbon in the US Agricultural Sector." ERS Research Brief. (2004). http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/434180/tb1909_researchbrief_1_.pdf (accessed February 4, 2014).

5. Scialabba, Nadia. "Factors Influencing Organic Agriculture Policies with a Focus on Developing Countries."IFOAM 2000 Scientific Conference and Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. : 28 - 31. http://www.fao.org.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/docs/eims/upload/230159/BaselSum-final.pdf (accessed February 26, 2014).

6. "Sink or Swim ." Nature. no. 331-332 (2013). 10.1038/504331b (accessed February 4, 2014).

The Benefits of Genetic Screening

[1]

35 years ago, the discovery of genetic screening helped diagnose and prevent mental retardation in newborns, proving its success. Due to its achievements, we have been able to apply this process to other genetic disorders. A study has discovered that genetic screening could diagnose children at rates of 15-50% who could potentially have a previously non-diagnosable disease (1). The study focuses on diseases where the environment plays a factor. The genetic sequencing of newborns could identify a disease that the child has, thus allowing the child to be treated. This results in a reduced mortality rate with respect to newborn diseases. Therefore, genetic sequencing is beneficial for newborns.

Genetic sequencing is defined as the analyzation of a segment of DNA in order to determine the nucleotide sequence within the segment (2). It helps doctors note distinct mutations in the DNA of newborns and young adults which can help decipher the specific diseases newborns may have. A way doctors analyze the DNA segment is through genetic screening. This is a test which allows doctors to discover any genetic mutations and differences that may prove to be pathological. For a newborn genetic screening test, the doctor pricks at the newborn’s heel in order to obtain a blood sample and sends it to a laboratory. After receiving the results, the doctor compares the segment of the DNA with other segments to check for any disorders. The next step of treatment will be taken if the result of the test concludes in a discovery of a disorder.

To begin with, genetic screening is beneficial not only to newborns, but also to young adults and adults. Several genes discovered are known to be associated with certain diseases. These new-found discoveries will help lead to an increasing number of genetic tests that can be added on to the previous tests for newborns. Implementing the genetic test in newborns will allow doctors to discover the genetic variants and mutations that can lead to certain diseases. Once this is figured out, the doctor can then proceed to the next step of treatment; helping the newborn overcome and treat the disease. As a result, the chances of detecting a disease in a newborn will increase dramatically.

The authors also point out that despite some diseases, like cancer, which cannot be detected at birth since environmental factors play a role, newer tests that detect genetic variants can reduce mortality in individuals with those diseases. Therefore, the implementation of genetic sequencing will be beneficial to newborns as well as adults (1). Since genetic screening can also be informative about diseases like cancer and other environmentally related diseases, it is crucial that doctors begin the screening process in newborns in order to simultaneously help young adults and adults.

Building upon the benefits genetic screening provides for all ages, genetic screening also increases life expectancy. Genetic screening and early detection in newborns can increase their likelihood of survival significantly. By detecting the disease in newborns early, specific treatment can have a larger and more beneficial impact on the newborn. Through the newer tests that detect genetic variants, any found mutations in young adults can be treated earlier. Genetic testing can also predict whom drug therapy will have the most positive and effective outcome on. Thus, the implementation of genetic screening is advantageous for diagnosing an array of disorders in newborns and adults.

Furthermore, an inevitable concern for parents and patients are the ethics and legality of genetic screening for newborns. Since undoubtedly, sequencing an infant can be doubtful for parents, investigators will work with doctors and parents simultaneously to help make informed decisions. This way the doctors will gain knowledgeable information while assuring the parents and patients of the benefits and security of genetic sequencing. A main controversy is the possibility of misreading the results. Without professional guidance, people can misinterpret the information and become apprehensive about their health. Another main controversy is the emotional and social risk associated with genetic tests. Inevitably, emotions for that person and within a family can drastically change once the results are viewed. Also, the lack of treatment for many disorders is a negative aspect of genetic testing; however, with the ethical and legality as a working progress, the application of this process can prove its successfulness in predicting future illnesses in newborns by the GSNSD program. Indeed, early detection will undoubtedly help immensely in newborns (2).

Despite the controversial concerns about genetic screening in newborns, previously stated, the benefits of the screening are high and are increasing as more people start to understand it. Specifically, parental consent is a large portion in getting the screening done for newborns. Through valid arguments on both sides, a compromised solution was developed: diseases that have solutions and immediate benefits will be tested upon birth, however, diseases that have no immediate benefit will need parental consent. Therefore, this article lays out the basics of what is concluded and asserts that although genetic screening is recommended, doctors still pay attention to the ethics (3).

Works Cited

(1).Yoon, Paula, and Bin Chen. Genetics in Medicine, "Public health impact of genetic tests at the end of the 20th century." Last modified September 06, 2001. Accessed February 3, 2014. http://www.nature.com/gim/journal/v3/n6/full/gim200178a.html.

(2). Collins, Francis. The JAMA Network, "Genetics Moves into the Medical Mainstream." Last modified November 14, 2001. Accessed February 3, 2014. http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1149670.

(3). Levy, Paul. OvidSP, "An Overview of Newborn Screening." Last modified September 2010. Accessed February 3, 2014. http://journals.lww.com/jrnldbp/Abstract/2010/09000/An_Overview_of_Newborn


Photo Credits

[1].  Photo By: Polygon Medical Animation

Possible Advantages of a Collated Medical Database

Beginning in January 2014, the National Health Service of the UK launched a campaign entitled “Care.data” which proposed an organized medical database that would store patient information. In the Nature editorial “Power to the People,” the author makes a claim that this proposed database would create a threat to security of personal information, and for this reason constituents should have a right to opt out (1). Although this collated database is being criticized by opponents who feel it may be a threat to privacy, new pseudonymization techniques create greater security in patient information. An organized medical database would allow for research opportunities and better patient care that overpower privacy concerns, therefore; patients should not have the right to withhold information from the proposed database.

The National Health Service (NHS) of the UK is the world’s largest publicly funded health service that was formed to provide quality and accessible healthcare to all. By creating a medical database, the NHS believes that they will be able to improve the quality of the health care services that they provide. To address concerns about threats to privacy with the new database collation, the NHS proposed a new method of privacy protection called pseudonymization. With this technique individual patients across different data sets over time are given the same pseudonym (2). A pseudonym is a fake name that is given to an individual to protect his or her true identity. This new technique will replace previous privacy protection techniques and will resolve problems associated with the previous technique. Previous methods involved files that contained identifiable patient information and were not secured. In this new method patients include their date of birth, postcode, NHS Number, and gender. A pseudonym is then given that links these records to a secure system that is managed by the Health and Social Care Information Centre in the UK. Once this information has been linked, a new record will be created that does not contain identifiable patient information (3). This would allow data sets to be linked to patients without directly revealing their personal identities. Because the pseudonymization technique will be effective at protecting personal patient information, patients should not be concerned about a threat to privacy.

[1]

A medical database that contained all patient medical information would create great research opportunity and improved patient care. For health researchers and policymakers, linked medical data will provide means for a better understanding of trends and the impacts of policy initiatives in medical care. This allows an efficient setting to engage in comparative and cost effectiveness research of medical care (4). A collated medical database will also provide a large evidence base. Not only will this large evidence further medical research, but it will also help physicians to learn  from the experiences of other physicians and their patients. The linked medical data will also allow physicians to gain a better understanding of medical trends, which would also help to improve health care (5). Also, due to the enclave, physicians will have access to more complete and accurate patient information. This access will permit physicians to provide better care to patients who are entered into the database because they will have the means to properly diagnose patients based on their previous history. More complete patient information will also enable physicians to more effectively prescribe personalized medicine. A data enclave of medical information, like Care.data will further research advancements in medicine and will also allow physicians to provide better care to patients, which in fact coincides with their main slogan “Better Health Means Better Care” (1).

Although the writer of the Nature editorial “Power to the People” feels that people should have the right to opt out of the Care.data medical database, the database needs all patient information to be effective; therefore, people should not have the right to opt out. If people were allowed to opt out, the intended purpose of the database would not be met because the database would be incomplete. If people were allowed to opt out of having their information stored in the database then there would be less advancement in research, and patients would not receive as optimal care as they would have if the database were complete. An incomplete database would also make it harder for physicians to diagnose patients that chose not to have their information stored in the database. Those patients that opted out would also not be able to receive as in depth personalized care based on physician findings about other patients with similar symptoms and concerns. In order for the medical database to be completely effective, it must contain all patient information; therefore patients should not be allowed to opt out.

The medical database proposed by the National Health Service of the UK would provide means for research advancement, and would also improve quality of patient care. In order for the database to be completely effective, people should not have the right to opt out due to privacy concerns, especially because new pseudonymization techniques provide means for greater security in patient information.


Works Cited

(1) Lusignan, Simon de, and Chris van Weel. "The use of routinely collected computer data for research in primary care: opportunities and challenges." Family Practice. no. 2 (2005): 253-263.

(2) Maillard, Janet. ISO, ""Pseudonymization"- new ISO specification supports privacy in health informatics." Last modified March 10, 2009.

(3) NHS Choices, "Better Information Means Better Care."

(4) Newman, David, Carolina Herrera, Amanda Frost, and Stephen Parente. "The Need For A Smart Approach To Big Health Care Data." Health Affairs (blog), January 27, 2014.

(5) Godsiff, Roger. "The Government must rethink the risks of flowed data-sharing scheme." Pulse, January 31, 2014.

Photo Credits

[1] Photo By: Army Medicine 

The Battle of the FDA and Stem Cell Research

 [1]


 In early July of 2011, Texas Governor Rick Perry used his own stem cells during a spinal fusion surgery without the approval of the FDA. (1) While the operation cost thousands of dollars, the use of the stem cells quickly sped up the healing process and Governor Rick Perry was very appreciative of the doctors who used the process. Although stem cell research represents a viable option for medical treatment, it is currently being blockaded by the FDA due to their hesitation about the validity of the research. While the FDA should have some input due to issues such as the controversy of pro-life enthusiasts, the decision should ultimately be left to local governments simply because Congress has determined medical practice to be a state issue rather than a federal one.

In the case of Governor Rick Perry, stem cells have been proven to be a great use of healing and the repairing of tissue from and to one’s own body . They are taken from a person’s body , cultivated, and then reinserted to help with regeneration and sometimes as new cells, such as nerve cells which are not typically regenerative. (2) The two types of stem cells are adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells. Embryonic stem cells are more commonly studied due to their flexibility in research and practice. This is also the more controversial of the two because it requires cells from an embryo. Both cells are very promising advancements in the medical world and have been used before with great results such as in the case of Rick Perry.

The FDA is a federally controlled division of government in charge of sanctioning drugs and cosmetics as well as food and food processes . The FDA claims that it has power over the regulation of stem cells which it categorizes as drugs. This however is not true. The medical practices of stem cells does not involve drugs. It involves the practice of using someone’s own stem cells . This practice of medicine has usually been a power left to the states. (3) It is also seen that the term “drug” can be left up to the FDA to determine, but according to Richard A. Epstein, a scholar from the Manhattan Institute, the Supreme Court has drawn that power from the FDA as seen in the case of the FDA v Brown & Williamson Tobacco.

[2] Another reason that the FDA may be waiting to give clear consent on whether the practice of stem cells is the fact that it is still considered a controversy among our society. This is because many pro-life enthusiasts feel as though the tampering of embryos is tampering with life and should not be allowed. While they make a compelling argument, the advancement of new technologies has made it so that actual embryos would not be needed. According to Hope Gillette, an editor for voxxi.com, scientists are in the process of using adult stem cells and converting them back to embryonic cells so that they can be used for research. (4) This would allow for more versatility when using and studying stem cells and would also allow for less controversy from pro-life enthusiasts. And with less controversy, the FDA may be more inclined to allow for the continuation of the practice and research involving stem cells.

The FDA should surely lessen restrictions for the continuation of advancements with stem cells. It has been a huge medical breakthrough in the past 10 years] and is trying to grow into something that can be beneficial to everyone. The FDA does not have much power in the first place to regulate it due to the fact that it should not be considered a drug. This medical practice is something that has usually been a power left to by the states . It is also in the process of becoming less of a practical issue in society with new evidence that actual embryos may not be harmed in the studies of stem cells. If the FDA steps back and allows stem cells continue to grow , we may be able to see great advancements in the field of medicine.


Works Cited

1. Saenz, Arlette. "Texas Gov. Rick Perry Received Experimental Stem Cell Therapy." ABC News. ABC News Network, 04 Aug. 2011. Web. 17 Mar. 2014.

2. Johnson, Carolyn Y. "Health & Wellness." BostonGlobe.com. N.p., 17 Feb. 2014. Web. 16 Mar. 2014.

3. Epstein, Richard A. "The FDA's Misguided Regulation of Stem-Cell Procedures." Legal Policy Report 17 | The FDA's Misguided Regulation of Stem-Cell Procedures: How Administrative Overreach Blocks Medical Innovation. N.p., Sept. 2013. Web. 18 Mar. 2014.

4.Gillette, Hope. "New Way to Create Embryonic Stem Cells May Eliminate controversy." Voxxi RSS. N.p., 30 Jan. 2013. Web. 18 Mar. 2014.


Photo Credits

1. Photo by Alain Alexander Mesa

2. Photo by William Murphy

Stem Cells Revealed

[1]

In 2013, there were approximately 1.7 million new cases of cancer and 580,000 deaths caused by incurable diseases (1). In addition to this, 10 million people worldwide suffer from the terminal disease of Parkinson’s (2). These statistics would suggest that it is logical to seek out potential cures. Luckily, a possible breakthrough in stem cell research could be the link to eliminate numerous terminal diseases that affect millions worldwide (3). With this discovery, it is hard to believe that we have not fully supported stem cell research. Nevertheless, because of ethical, moral, and political reasons extreme restrictions have been put on the research. This research should be expedited, focusing on science and fact, not on political views, making the ethical and political arguments against it disputable.

The discovery of stem cells and their potential uses has been controversial since it was found that two types of stem cells could be obtained; one from embryos in the earliest stages of development and the other from fatty tissues in fully developed adults (3). An embryo is a fertilized egg that marks the beginning of the development cycle to make humans. While both are avenues to obtaining stem cells, embryonic stem cells appear to be the practical choice; they have not had time to be manipulated into a certain type of cell, thus allowing them the possibility to become any type of cell (4). This is unlike the adult stem cells that regenerate into the tissue of their origin (4). When dealing with stem cells, those coming from embryos draw the most attention in the battle of ethics.

The main controversy being discussed today is whether harvesting stem cells from embryos, which are fertilized in labs, is ethical. The human population has been exposed to this argument about when life truly begins for numerous years in the wake of the issue of abortion. The notion of when life begins is very subjective and relies on certain beliefs, varying between religion and science. It is the unknown status of when life begins that is holding back the possibilities that stem cell research has to offer. There are several arguments contributing against the use of embryos for stem cell testing. The New England Journal of Medicine says that the arguments against embryonic stem cells originate from the fear of potentially “dehumanizing practices” if the embryos are allowed to develop into human fetuses (5). Those opposed to embryonic stem cell research because of this fear believe that if we allow these cells to be extracted from embryos, what will stop us from developing cloning or creating babies for the purpose of harvesting organs? These are morbid thoughts, I know, but they exist and must be thought through to test their validity. Their argument is based on pure speculation and “what if” possibilities. With the incredibly strict regulations that the US has put on stem cell research, the likelihood that the government would allow practices to escalate to that level is essentially nonexistent.

This nonexistent outcome of fetal cloning and harvesting is already in practice in countries that have little to no regulations on stem cell research. Japan is notorious for their lack of regulation when it comes to new medical procedures and the same goes for their research on stem cells (6). Through my research, there have not been scandalous reports of any kind about ethical misconduct regarding stem cells or cloning thus far. While it is possible that something like this has just not surfaced, the possibility of a human medical professional having the ability to do something so heinous is unthinkable. Though this action is inhumane, it is not impossible. Therefore, multiple countries around the world have set up a system of guidelines when it comes to stem cell research. In Canada, legislation has been passed that allows the research and testing of embryonic stem cells as long as it follows certain protocols. These protocols include research having potential benefits for Canadians, the donors have free and informed consent and full disclosure, and that they are not paid for their involvement (7). Australia has passed laws against the practice of cloning, as well as Canada, Chile, and Denmark specifically. I think it is understood that cloning and harvesting is not going to be a part of this research anywhere around the world. However, Australia, Canada, Denmark, as well as France, have moved to make their regulations more lax, allowing for the research of embryonic stem cells if it is done on donated embryos or leftover IVF embryos that are no longer needed (7). France explains that “research can be authorized on the embryo and embryonic cells when they are likely to allow great therapeutic progress” when people willingly donate their eggs (7). More countries, especially the United States, need to understand the importance of allowing this research to take place. It appears that more and more countries are coming to terms with this and revising their strict guidelines on stem cell research, which is the direction that allows the US to move forward with its studies. Historically, the US has ranked among the top leaders in the world when it comes to technology and research. Imagine if our country embraced this opportunity to save millions of lives.

Another major argument against embryonic stem cell research is that fertilized embryos are the beginning of human development and thus the beginning of human life. The New England Journal of Medicine goes on to say that those who believe embryonic stem cell research is wrong because of this, but support IVF fertility treatments, are hypocritical in their convictions. If this is true, then all medical procedures involving embryos should not be allowed, including fertility treatments. These treatments collect eggs, inject them with sperm, create an embryo, and then implant the eggs back into the female body (8). However, not all of the eggs are implanted; they are either frozen or thrown away. Throwing away fertilized eggs and using embryos for stem cells essentially has the same end result. They are both no longer viable to create a human, however the stem cells could potentially provide life saving cures, whereas throwing away the embryos eliminates the potential to help anyone. The government restrictions are only seen with stem cells and not with fertility treatments. These treatments have been successful for couples hoping to create a family, so the rules should be less restrictive on stem cell research, enabling scientists to save millions of people, and quite possibly the families that IVF helped to create.

The political status of stem cell research has been on a roller coaster ride in the past decade. In 1998, researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Madison published their research on stem cells. They had found a way to isolate “stem cells from human embryos” (9). Since this finding had to do with embryos, it was closely associated with the even more controversial and political issue of abortion. Due to this association, “the national government has waded into the ongoing battle over embryonic stem cell research intermittently since 1998” (9), as the public has called on them for the banning/defunding of or the support of the research. Those that are against stem cell research and the government supporting it usually believe that human life begins at conception. This is customarily a religious belief, since a large majority of our country is Christian (78.4%), Jewish (1.7%), and Muslim (0.6%), and thus believes in this notion (10). Due to the beliefs of this vast majority, politicians feel the pressure from their constituents to vote against the funding and support of stem cell research. Therefore, politicians are letting their fear of not being reelected deter them from reinventing stem cell laws, an action that could help masses of people in the future. In the United States, we pride ourselves in having a democratic government that separates church and state. This is not a choice that I believe politicians should be allowed to make and I think the religious beliefs of many have clouded their view on this issue. This is considered a political issue and it should be nothing of the sort. Stem cell research is strictly a medical discussion that should be handled by medical professionals with medical degrees. Politicians do not have the credibility nor the experience and knowledge to pass legislation about stem cell research. Also, medical professionals practice under the Hippocratic oath, an oath of ethics, and a guide that all certified doctors practice under. We can trust that doctors and research teams would put the best interest of humans first and practice in an ethical and professional manner, allowing for the extensive research of stem cells and the prospects of innovative medicines to cure the incurable.

Stem cell research is a topic that is very controversial, but has been shut down due to fear and beliefs outside of logical reason. Society is shrouded in the misguided notions regarding stem cells and is blinded by personal and political motives to act against a potentially wonderful discovery. We, as a society, need to realize the importance of researching stem cells and lift the extensive bans on a potential cure that would help our society today and future generations tomorrow. How much longer can we allow the senseless passing of terminally ill human beings when a possible cure is looking us right in the face? I hope that we can come together and do right by all that could be saved from terminal diseases and allow them to the long, healthy lives they deserve.

Works Cited


1. American Cancer Society, "Cancer Facts & Figures 2013." Last modified 2013. Accessed February 12, 2014. http://www.cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@epidemiologysurveilance/documents/document/acspc-036845.pdf

2. Parkinson's Disease Foundation, "Statistics on Parkinson's." Last modified 2014. Accessed February 12, 2014. http://www.pdf.org/en/parkinson_statistics

3. Peter, Crosta. MediLexicon International, "What Are Stem Cells?." Last modified July 19, 2013. Accessed January 29, 2014. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/info/stem_cell/.

4. National Institues of Health, "Stem Cell Basics." Last modified April 28, 2002.
Accessed January 29, 2014. http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/pages/basics1.aspx.

5. The New England Journal of Medicine, "Embryo Ethics — The Moral Logic of
Stem-Cell Research." Last modified July 15, 2004. Accessed February 3, 2014.http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp048145

6. Nature, "Unknown Territory." Last modified February 06, 2013. Accessed
February 3, 2014. http://www.nature.com/news/unknown-territory-1.12360

7. The New Atlantis: A Journal of Technology & Society, "Overview of
International Human Embryonic Stem Cell Laws." Last modified 2012. Accessed February 10, 2014. http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/appendix-e-overview-of-international-human-embryonic-stem-cell-laws.

8. American Pregnancy Association, "In Vitro Fertilization: IVF." Last modified
May 2007. Accessed February 19, 2014. http://americanpregnancy.org/infertility/ivf.html.

9. Karch, Andrew. The University of Utah, "Vertical Diffusion and the
Policy-Making Process: The Politics of Embryonic Stem Cell Research."
Last modified October 27, 2007. Accessed February 19, 2014.
http://prq.sagepub.com/content/65/1/48.full.pdf+html

10. Pew Search: Religion & Public Life Project, "Religious Landscape Survey."
Accessed February 20, 2014. http://religions.pewforum.org/reports.


Photo Credits

1. Photo by UCI UC Irvine