Road to the Neuropharmacology Debate: Week 3

Hi Everyone. It has been a little bit of a slow week, only because there have been some other things my group members and I have had to complete. However, we still got through some work and managed to gather some important information and organise some important things. Firstly, my team and I have agreed that our first argument will reflect the overall therapeutic relevance of stem cell use. This means that have spent some time this week looking at different kinds of stem cells and focusing on the negative side effects that would arise (or that have arose) from clinical trials. For example, embryonic stem cells (these are the stem cells that bring a hoard of ethical issues with the) are derived from the wall of the blastocyst and they are capable of differentiating into any type of cell. However, clinical trials have shown that because of this ability to differentiate, the use of embryonic stem cells can encourage he development of tumors (more specifically teratomas and teratocarcinoma).

Furthermore, induced pluripotent stem cells are normal somatic cells that are treated with cellular growth factors in order to reconvert the cells into pluripotent stem cells. Although this type of stem cell may dodge the ethical consideration debate, the process involving the conversion of the somatic cells is very slow and does not produce many stem cells (is inefficient). Furthermore, there is also evidence of the development of tumors with their use. I also learnt about many other type of stem cells such as Neural Stem cells and Mesenchymal stem cells as well as the disadvantages these cells have. So for now I am pretty sure that this will reflect my first and main argument. I will try to show that the stem cells are not viable mainly due to the fact that their disadvantages and side effects are too severe and thus they are not worth replacing current stroke treatment. And thus this brings me to what still needs to be done. I have to take a look and do some research in order to find out about current stroke treatment. I then need to focus on the efficacy of both the regular treatment and stem cell treatment and determine whether or not stem cells could replace contemporary drugs.

Thus my team and I will start to develop and finish off this first argument and we should also simultaneously construct some power point slides to suit this argument. Additionally, a couple members of my group have started looking at arguments that the ‘FOR’ team could use and so this will be quite beneficial. Also, one of our group members (Eileen) has really started to turn the wheels on the team wagon as she started a Google Drive and uploaded 4 different (but relevant) articles involving stem cells as a means of stroke treatment.

So all in all we are progressing, perhaps quite slowly this week but we are moving and that’s the important. I’m aiming to construct and finish my first argument soon and that will push us along even further. All the best, until next week. See ya ๐Ÿ˜€

P.S – Nicole and Jonathon have a great time in Cairns ๐Ÿ˜€

One thought on “Road to the Neuropharmacology Debate: Week 3

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s