Sentences with phrase «destruction of human embryos»

In August, federally funded work on stem cells was temporarily suspended after a judge ruled that work on hESCs violates a legal amendment in 1995 forbidding funding of any experiments that involve destruction of human embryos.

In the past few years, scientists have proposed several alternatives to deriving human ES cells that would not require destruction of a human embryo (Science, 24 December 2004, p. 2174).

The fundamental impediment to our acceptance of embryonic stem cell research has to do with destruction of the human embryo.

In vetoing the measure, Bush said it would be «a grave mistake» for «American taxpayers [to] be compelled to support the deliberate destruction of human embryos.»

The court also ruled that if «the subject matter of the patent application requires the prior destruction of human embryos or their use as base material,» the application is not patentable.

That may well be a defensible position, but if so, it challenges the principle that the inevitable destruction of human embryos should be avoided at all costs, no matter what the potential benefits.

Richard Doerflinger, Deputy Director of the Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities at the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, commented: «With each new study it becomes more and more implausible to claim that scientists must rely on destruction of human embryos to achieve rapid progress in regenerative medicine.»

For that matter, even when perfected, this method will always involve the destruction of a human embryo, the one whose nucleus is removed.

The Church is portrayed by the media as being completely opposed to stem - cell research, and relatively few people are aware that there are two completely separate areas of research, namely embryonic stem - cell research, which involves the destruction of human embryos (and is therefore opposed by the Church), and adult stem - cell research.

This is a major step forward, proving the viability of adult - stem - cell procedures that do not thereby involve the destruction of human embryos.

ANT - OAR accomplishes this same goal, however, by using an approach that does not involve the generation and destruction of human embryos.

Jim Dobbin put his experience and background as a microbiologist to good use in fighting against genetic manipulation, the destruction of human embryos and the cloning of animal - human hybrids, and in defending the sanctity of the life of the unborn child.

Thus, ESC research necessarily depends upon the destruction of a human embryo.»

The argument of Sherley et al. is that such research using humanembryos directly violates another principle of U.S. law, the Dickey - Wicker amendment of 1995, which prohibits the destruction of human embryos.

But the One Of Us initiative, which aims to block European Commission funding for any activities that involve the destruction of the human embryo, would adversely affect development aid to maternal health projects.

The field has been dogged by political and religious opponents, who object to the destruction of human embryos during the harvest of cells.

Treatments using iPSC's are preferable to those that use embryonic stem cells as they do not involve the destruction of human embryos.

The court's ruling, which can not be appealed and applies to all 27 member states of the European Union (EU), bans patents on procedures that involve the destruction of human embryos at any stage.

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 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.

Scientists have been working feverishly in recent years on methods to create lines of human embryonic stem (ES) cells that do not involve the destruction of human embryos.

In contrast, Sandel argues that the opposition to stem cell research voiced by people like Richard Doerflinger of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops is «morally consistent and principled» because they oppose any activity that promotes the destruction of human embryos, including in vitro fertilization.

Employing the arch rhetoric that has typified stem cell politics since 1998, some members of Congress denounced the research because it requires the destruction of human embryos.

Five days earlier, 70 House members led by abortion opponent Jay Dickey (R - AR) had written an equally harsh letter to Shalala, complaining that HHS is misreading a recent law that bans U.S. funding of research that involves the destruction of human embryos.

But the process means that US scientists - already stymied by years of government funding freezes linked to controversy over the destruction of human embryos - often find themselves blocked because other universities or private companies have already secured exclusive rights.

The process transforms the adult cells into pluripotent stem cells, which seem to share the key characteristics of embryonic stem cells but do not require the creation, use, or destruction of a human embryo.

But not even this fourth will mark the death knell for this deadly science: while the ruling temporarily halts the federal funding of embryo - destructive stem - cell research, it does nothing to prevent the destruction of human embryos in privately funded research.

Some have said that between adult stem cells and this new skin cell discovery, the debate about embryonic stem cell research — which results in the destruction of a human embryo — can finally come to an end.

At the time, many saw in Yamanaka's breakthrough a way to overcome the ethical controversies that had previously plagued research using pluripotent stem cells derived from the destruction of human embryos.

At first blush, these words, known as the Dickey - Wicker Amendment, might appear to prohibit government funding of ESC research altogether, because ESC research necessarily involves the destruction of human embryos.

Chief Judge Lamberth (who was appointed in 1987 by President Ronald Reagan) ruled to block Obama's hESC policy on August 23, 2010, asserting that federal funding could not be used in hESC research because the research «necessarily depends upon the destruction of a human embryo.»

He could have left the funding of research involving cell lines created by the destruction of human embryos in place, and led the charge to promote ethically unproblematic non-embryo-destructive forms of stem cell science.

«The NIH proposal... [permits] the destruction of human embryos; it contemplates producing entities with partly or wholly human brains (without any additional level of scrutiny in the case of rodents); and it allows for producing living entities who have human gametes (though researchers will be told to take precautions so these entities do not engage in «breeding»).»

«Nothing in this bill allows the destruction of a human embryo destined for life,» said Rep. Phyllis Kahn, DFL - Minneapolis, the chief House author.

The European patent agency refused to give the University of Wisconsin rights to an invention for the creation and use of embryonic stem cells, saying it won't patent anything requiring «the use and destruction of human embryos.»

The administration also restricted the use of embryonic stem cells in scientific research, maintaining that they were derived from the destruction of human embryos.