Sentences with phrase «destroying human embryos»

Other emerging techniques hold potential for good, without creating and destroying human embryos.»

Aug. 23, 2010: Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth of Federal District Court for the District of Columbia found that the Obama administration's executive order contradicts a law banning federal money to go toward destroying human embryos.

Until recently, such cells could be produced only by destroying human embryos and harvesting embryonic stem cells.

But isolating the cells required destroying human embryos, embroiling the research in religious controversy.

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.

In this way they act like embryonic stem cells and share their revolutionary therapeutic potential — and as such, they could eliminate the need for using and then destroying human embryos.

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.

Just before Thanksgiving, news broke about a new stem - cell technique that could produce the equivalent of embryonic stem cells (ESCs) but without using or destroying human 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.»

Doyle also urged the Wisconsin congressional delegation to lead the fight to repeal a federal law that bars the use of federal taxpayer money for experiments that destroy human embryos.

Anti-abortion groups oppose such treatments because hESCs can usually be obtained only by destroying a human embryo.

The method, which involves inserting genetic material that makes the cells» development run backwards, opens the door to stem cells specific to patients, which could be used to repair damaged organs or fight diseases such as Parkinson's and diabetes — crucially, all without the need to destroy human 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 new research presumably relied on nonfederal government funding, since Congress prohibits the use of taxpayer funds on research that destroys human embryos.)

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.

«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.

Two months ago, several scientists in Wisconsin and Japan announced that they had successfully created a type of stem cell from ordinary human skin cells that seems to be able to function exactly like an embryonic stem cell without the need to create or destroy human embryos.

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.

Not exact matches

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.

Unlike the controversial method of tissue harvesting that requires some human embryos to be destroyed, the new cloning technique can use a patient's own skin cells — combined with an unfertilized human egg — to create tissue with a DNA match.

Human cloning has been proposed as a means of generating human embryos that can be destroyed to obtain embryonic stem cHuman cloning has been proposed as a means of generating human embryos that can be destroyed to obtain embryonic stem chuman embryos that can be destroyed to obtain embryonic stem cells.

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).

«How many thousands of human embryos will be destroyed?»

Dickey - Wicker prohibits the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which encompasses NIH, from funding the destruction of human embryos or funding research in which embryos are destrHuman Services (HHS), which encompasses NIH, from funding the destruction of human embryos or funding research in which embryos are destrhuman embryos or funding research in which embryos are destroyed.

Faith and the embryo Biochemist Paul Berg suggests in April's Discover Dialogue [«Bio Brain Backs Stem Cells»] that only religious faith makes the judgment that the destruction of a human embryo destroys a human individual.

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.

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.»

The law signed by Davis was immediately assailed by antiabortion and religious groups, most of which maintain that stem - cell research is repugnant because human embryos must be created to supply the cells, then destroyed to harvest them.

Their paper — which used CRISPR - editing tools in non-viable embryos that were destroyed after three days — is only the second published claim of gene editing in human 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.

Almost immediately, groups ranging from the President's Council on Bioethics to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops assailed Hwang's work, either because cloned embryos were destroyed in the process or because his research could lead to cloning humans.

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.

Because embryos are not destroyed to create them, they have been hailed as a way out of the ethical dilemma posed by human embryonic stem cells.

One team in Japan, and another in the US, have independently shown it is possible to produce embryonic - like stem cells directly from a patient's own skin cells without having to create and destroy a cloned human embryo first.

But it also had a dark side: producing its supply of stem cells required the creation of human embryos which were later destroyed.

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.

PERSON 2 says it is wrong to create human embryos for the specific purpose of destroying them for their stem cells.

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 B).

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.

One form of stem cell research is conducted on embryonic stem cells — or those extracted from human embryos, which are destroyed in the process.

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.

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.»

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.

Although that embryo may only contain four or five cells, some religious leaders say that destroying it is the equivalent of taking a human life.