Sentences with phrase «destroying embryos for research»

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.

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.

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).

Not exact matches

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.

Hundreds of thousands of «leftover» embryos have been created through in - vitro fertilization, and will only be destroyed if not used for research.

Although he never banned this research outright, President Bush limited federal funding for research to the embryonic stem cell lines that existed before August 2001, thus drawing a line at destroying human embryos created after that date.

These parents had opted not to use an attorney, so my only personal requirement was that they sign and notarize a document stating that they would either use all embryos to try to conceive or donate unused embryos to an embryo adoption bank, and that they would not donate them for stem - cell research or destroy them.

Second, is their argument — that hESC research violates the Dickey - Wicker Amendment, which prohibits federal funding for research that destroys or harms embryos — reasonable?

They then argue that «By creating a financial incentive for embryonic stem cell research — an incentive that by NIH's own admission involves investments of «hundreds of millions of dollars» — and by specifying the precise means by which embryos must be destroyed in order to qualify for federal funding, the NIH necessarily and knowingly subjects embryos to a substantial risk of injury or death.»

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).

While conservatives in Congress took turns echoing George W. Bush's opposition to destroying human embryos for research, Lensch's colleague Paul Lerou stepped into a small room behind a heavy black curtain to check up on a line of nonpresidential embryonic stem cells.

They argued that NIH's July guidelines implementing an order from President Barack Obama to lift limits on hESC research violated the Dickey - Wicker Amendment, a law that prohibits federal funding for «research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed.»

Pro-embryo groups and others, including two scientists who study adult stem cells, argued that the NIH guidelines violated the Dickey - Wicker Amendment, a 16 - year - old law banning federal funds for «research in which... embryos are destroyed.»

That law bans federal funding for research that destroys embryos.

Currently, such experiments can not be done with federal funding in the United States because of a congressional prohibition on using taxpayer funds for research that destroys human embryos.

The Bush council included six members (Michael Sandel, Janet Rowley, William F. May, James Q. Wilson, Michael Gazzaniga, and Elizabeth Blackburn) who favored the production of human embryos for biomedical research in which they would be destroyed in the effort to obtain pluripotent stem cells.

Even when described in terms of the potential to cure some particular diseases — an approach used in most polling conducted by advocates of embryo - destroying research — cloning for research remained unacceptable to most respondents.

For while the new NIH guidelines explicitly permit funding for research on stem cell lines in which human embryos have already been destroyed, they also explicitly forbid funding for research on stem cell lines that have been produced by SCNT (see section V. part For while the new NIH guidelines explicitly permit funding for research on stem cell lines in which human embryos have already been destroyed, they also explicitly forbid funding for research on stem cell lines that have been produced by SCNT (see section V. part for research on stem cell lines in which human embryos have already been destroyed, they also explicitly forbid funding for research on stem cell lines that have been produced by SCNT (see section V. part for research on stem cell lines that have been produced by SCNT (see section V. part B).

The embryo could then be implanted in a mother's womb to develop to birth or used for research purposes, which would ultimately result in it being destroyed.

PERSON 2: It is unethical to destroy human embryos for the purposes of research because doing so destroys human embryos that are human beings and could otherwise have developed and grown like every other human being.

Those embryos were then destroyed for stem cell research, but they could just as readily have been implanted toward an attempt at bringing the embryo to birth.

Do you support or oppose creating embryos to destroy them for scientific research purposes?

«Many Americans consider it unethical and immoral to destroy human embryos for scientific research, especially when adult stems cells have a proven track record of success,» he said.

In that instance, do you support or oppose using and therefore destroying those unwanted embryos for scientific research purposes?

There were some who simply dismissed outright any ethical concerns about destroying for research so - called «leftover» embryos from in vitro fertilization.

Some pro-lifers thought that even this policy fell short of full respect for human life, but Bush was attempting to make the best of a bad situation: for embryos that had already been destroyed, funds would be made available for research that tried to salvage some value out of their destruction.

The process results in a human embryo which can then be implanted in a mother's womb to develop to birth, frozen for later transfer to a mother, or discarded or used for research purposes (and then destroyed).

Every year since 1996, the US Congress has included language in its budget bills prohibiting the use of taxpayer money for «research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death.»

Diabetes has long been one of the main diseases for which human embryonic stem cell (embryo - destroying) research, or hESCR, was claimed to hold the greatest promise of curing.

The rule has allowed embryo research outside the womb for up to 14 days post-fertilization, after which time the embryo would be destroyed.

Wicker, then a congressman, was one of the two coauthors, in 1995, of the Dickey - Wicker amendment, which prohibits federal funding for research in which human embryos are destroyed, and which sits at the heart of the current legal dispute.

After more debate, the government may change this allowing cloned human cells and embryos to be created for research purposes as long as they are destroyed after 14 days.

The plaintiffs claimed that the new policy violated the Dickey - Wicker Amendment, established in 1996, which states that federal money can not be used for «research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death.»

In the United States, labs have to find private funding for any research that creates or destroys human embryos, and some lawmakers seek to ban it altogether.

Representatives Jay Dickey and Roger Wicker proposed banning the use of federal monies for any research in which a human embryo is created or destroyed.

Those against stem - cell research using human embryos because they believe it destroys human life are, for the most part, also against the blending of species because they believe it degrades human life.

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

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

There are estimated to be more than 400,000 IVF embryos, which are currently frozen and will likely be destroyed if not donated, with informed consent of the couple, for research.