Sentences with phrase «destroying embryos»

Indeed, to protect women from economic and scientific exploitation, and in deference to the moral and political ambiguity that embryos carry with them, no nation allows the unrestricted commodification of embryos, and some, including Germany, have bans on destroying embryos for research purposes.

He developed a way to harvest the embryonic stem cells without destroying the embryos.

Pawlenty, Bush and other critics of the research propose funding studies on stem cells taken from adults rather than destroying embryos to harvest the cells.

Opponents of embryonic stem cell research also are grabbing onto recent scientific advances that they say obviate the need for destroying embryos.

DeGette and others who support her, Earll said, «are fixated on ancient history when it comes to destroying embryos for stem cell research.»

But stem cells are a hot political topic, because researching stem cells from human embryos typically involves destroying those embryos.

Moreover, Earll said, voters who oppose destroying embryos for any reason are important to a Republican nominee.

An amendment that would have limited state aid to studies on stem cells derived without destroying embryos failed on a 65 - 69 vote.

In recent years, researchers have tried to find ways to obtain embryonic stem cells without destroying the embryos.

Opponents of embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) sought a method of producing pluripotent cells without destroying embryos.

In an interview with the New York Times, Yamanaka recalled looking at a human embryo through a microscope several years earlier:» When I saw the embryo, I suddenly realized there was such a small difference between it and my daughters... I thought, we can't keep destroying embryos for our research.

In order to determine that the transformations work properly and the cells are safe for therapeutic use, researchers need to compare the iPS cells to ES cells, which means destroying embryos.

Many opponents of embryonic stem cell research hail this news as an important step away from research methods that rely on destroying embryos.

Scientists in Canada and Scotland have developed a virus - free method for generating embryonic - like stem cells that does not involve destroying embryos.

In an advance that could solve many of the ethical and technical issues involved in stem cell research, two groups of scientists have independently converted human skin cells directly into stem cells without creating or destroying embryos.

In the face of these setbacks, many scientists have focused on new methods of creating stem cell lines without destroying embryos.

Others trumpeted «alternative» techniques that promise the creation of embryonic stem cells without destroying embryos.

In the past few months, researchers in the United States and Japan have described a promising way of deriving embryonic stem cells from skin cells (of mice) without destroying embryos — the «Holy Grail of biotechnology,» as The Times of London put it.

A pluripotent state makes the resulting cells indistinguishable from embryonic stem cells, and the scientists got these cells without creating or destroying any embryos.

We see this especially in IVF preimplantation testing, which has now — as reported here at SHS — moved to destroying embryos that test for the wrong sex, hair, and eye color.

For most in the scientific community, the debate was never truly about whether adult stem cells or embryonic stem cells would be the most useful therapeutically or whether we could obtain embryonic - like stem cells without destroying embryos.

Some people see simply no ethical problem at all with destroying embryos for research, and for them the study of embryos for its own sake is certainly worth public support (we support all kinds of basic research after all, rightfully so, and this basic research could be of more value than most).

A few weeks ago we all heard the announcement of a major scientific breakthrough that allowed scientists to create the equivalent of human embryonic stem cells (called induced pluripotent stem cells) but without using or destroying embryos.

You may be (as I am) against destroying embryos to use for stem cell research, but I bet you are delighted for the couples who get to have children as a result of in - vitro fertilization clinics.

Lamberth flatly rejected the government's attempt to distinguish between the destruction of the embryo and research on the destroyed embryo as distinct «pieces of research» — one ineligible for funding and one eligible.

Similarly, the status of the human embryo, and the value placed upon it, have come under increasing scrutiny over the past decades, and even since DP in 2008 it has become increasingly normal to assume that it is morally acceptable to destroy embryos or to experiment upon them.12 The increasing sense of a loss of respect for human life in its earliest stages is linked to the abandonment of male - female lifelong marriage as the normal structure in which human life begins and is cherished.13 DP emphasises that «human procreation is a personal act of a husband and wife, which is not capable of substitution» (DP 16).

With the exception of sperm sorting, most existing RGTs either directly destroy embryos and fetuses or lead to that result.

The discovery raises the possibility of sourcing stem cells for regenerative medicine, without the need to destroy embryos.

Under the Obama administration, the number of embryonic stem cell lines available for federally funded research had more than tripled, but no money was going toward the creation of any cell lines (a process that destroys the embryo).

In an advance touted as a way around current political logjams, scientists have said they can derive human embryonic stem (ES) cell lines without destroying an embryo.

Lamberth granted a preliminary injunction on this research after hearing a petition from a group of advocates who argued that, contrary to the U.S. government's view, research on embryonic stem cells does in fact destroy embryos — action that is prohibited by legislation known as the «Dickey - Wicker Amendment» to the bill that funds the Department of Health and Human Services.

The question is how: by passing a new law, or by modifying Dickey - Wicker, a 14 - year - old law banning federal research that destroys embryos.

In 2008 a group of medical researchers led by Robert Lanza at Advanced Cell Technology in Worcester, Massachusetts, reported another leap: They discovered a way to avoid destroying the embryo by deriving an entire stem cell line from a single embryonic cell.

Traditionally, the process involves plucking the inner cell mass from a 5 - day - old embryo known as a blastocyst (a round ball of 150 to 200 cells the size of a grain of sand), which destroys the embryo.

Single - cell biopsy procedures are done routinely in infertility labs and do not destroy the embryo, which «takes away the president's last excuse to oppose the research,» ACT's vice president of research, Robert Lanza, told reporters.

Scientists James Sherley and Theresa Deisher filed their suit 2 years ago, arguing that the National Institutes of Health (NIH's) policy easing Bush - era restrictions on research using hESCs violated a law banning federally funded research that destroys embryos.

To demonstrate that the NIH guidelines don't induce researchers to derive hESCs (which destroys embryos), CAMR includes testimony from several NIH - funded hESC researchers who say they don't do any derivation work.

But this practice is still controversial technically and ethically because it does destroy an embryo which could have been implanted.

That law bans federal funding for research that destroys embryos.

Although a clause in the law that funds NIH prevents the agency from funding research that would harm or destroy an embryo, a lawyer at the Department of Health and Human Services ruled in 1999 that because stem cells — which can grow ad infinitum in culture — are not themselves embryos, the NIH could fund work with cells that were derived by privately funded researchers or researchers overseas.

Opponents of ESCR have applauded the discovery as well, citing its potential to render obsolete research methods that destroy embryos.

Scientists had always gotten around this by using private funds to destroy embryos and federal dollars to study the lines, Scott said.

A couple of years ago, Lanza was at conference when someone asked him a question: Why do scientists have to destroy embryos to get stem cells?

«However, this study shows now that it's possible to create embryonic stem cells without destroying the embryo, and thus without destroying its potential for life.»

The problem with embryonic stem cells, for some people, is that they originally come from destroyed embryos.

Loeb, who filed the papers in California under the name John Doe, is looking to stop Vergara (named as Jane Doe in the court documents) from having the option to destroy the embryos the two created via in vitro fertilization.

The source continued: «If either of them dies, the other has the right to destroy the embryos.

Not exact matches

Still, creating embryos solely to destroy them seems a vastly different act from creating embryos to overcome fertility problems.

In contrast, RU - 486, a medication prescribed for terminating pregnancies, destroys implanted embryos.»

Such technology includes producing, using, and destroying human embryos, which, says columnist Susan Martinuk in the National Post, may also raise some questions about «human dignity and worth.»