This article was written by Gene Tarne of the Charlotte Lozier Institute. She focuses this article on the clinical uses and potential of iPSCs and their possible therapeutic uses in regenerative medicine. The scientific communities hope is that they will be able to treat diseases such as Alzheimers and Parkinson's and also treat spinal cord injuries. The iPSCs are obtained through the blood in the umbilical cord. She explains that these cells have potential to treat so many diseases and with much less complications than ESCs. For one, iPSCs do not have the ethical dilemmas that ESCs do. ESCs obviously have many ethical problems that have been debated for years. Tarne talks a little bit about this and the arguments presented in front of congress by stakeholders such as Michael J Fox. This, was of course, before the discovery of iPSCs so the opinions and arguments have changed greatly since then. Nevertheless, the ethical problems with ESCs are a "significant barrier" and iPSCs do not have this problem. In addition, these iPSCs are held to very high standards and regulations. The iPSCs that Tarne talks about are cells designed purely for clinical use and not for lab use. The part I have highlighted clearly states that they are held to a standard of the U.S. Food and Drug Agency that forces them to meet safety and quality requirements. Research in both ESCs and iPSCs is ongoing and because of the lack of knowledge and understanding of them, they have not been put to the test very much in regenerative medicine and other clinical treatments. It is very important that clinical cells be held to high standards and also thoroughly researched before they are used for clinical use because of the possible outcomes that I underlined in AB 3. Overall, Tarne does a good job of remaining objective. She is a clear stakeholder in this debate because she works for Charlotte Lozier Institute and their goal is, "is to promote deeper public understanding of the value of human life, motherhood, and fatherhood, and to identify policies and practices that will protect life and serve both women’s health and family well-being." So Tarne clearly is against ESC research, however, it is not particularly clear in the article which means she remained objective for the most part. She mostly uses ethos to persuade her audience in the article. She does this by making the article understandable for the general public and also by her organization. I think most readers would assume The Charlotte Lozier Intitute is a credible source. Also, this article is very appealing because it was released almost a few months ago. All the other sources I have found are at least a couple years old, so it is refreshing to find a recent article that is up to date.
Tarne, Gene. "IPSCs: A New Gold Standard in Regenerative Medicine?" Charlotte Lozier Institute. Charlotte Lozier Institute, 28 July 2016. Web. 11 Oct. 2016.
Outside Sources:
"About Us." Charlotte Lozier Institute. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Oct. 2016.