Sentences with phrase «embryo research argue»

Not exact matches

Benedict argued that non-conjugal reproduction such as in vitro fertilization had created «new problems» ¯ the freezing of human embryos, for instance, and the selective abortion of medically implanted embryos, together with pre-implantation diagnosis, embryonic stem - cell research, and attempts at human cloning.

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.»

«Research embryos» that are «not to be transferred for possible implantation» are «not a big deal,» he argued.

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.

Many scientists argue that so - called research cloning, in which cloned human embryos might be used to produce embryonic stem (ES) cells, could be a boon to medicine.

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.»

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.

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.»

In a 35 ‑ page reply brief filed yesterday with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, government lawyers argue once again that U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth's ruling was erroneously based on the conclusion that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) guidelines for hESC research violate a law barring federally funded research that harms embryos.

Many observers who are otherwise opposed to human embryo research have argued, however, that despite the likely ultimate destruction of excess embryos after IVF, the desire of a couple to have a child is such a strong moral good that it justifies the procedure.

Benedict argued that non-conjugal reproduction such as in vitro fertilization had created «new problems» ¯ the freezing of human embryos, for instance, and the selective abortion of medically implanted embryos, together with pre-implantation diagnosis, embryonic stem - cell research, and attempts at human cloning.

Some have also argued that at the very least this new discovery means that federal taxpayers should not fund the destruction of embryos for research (which could proceed in the private sector) and public money should support this new alternative.

A year and a half ago, when President Obama signed his executive order funding embryo - destructive stem - cell research, I argued in The Weekly Standard that he was perpetuating a needless stem - cell war, that his decision was «bad ethics, bad science, and bad politics.»

Some critics of this viewpoint have argued that these embryos were marked for destruction and then donated by their owners, meaning that these embryos would never have come to term anyway, but others predict that this excuse might lead to more ethically questionable actions in the future, such as harvesting embryos specifically for research.

Thomas Hungar, of the Washington law firm Gibson, Dunn, argued for the plaintiffs that «it is undisputed in this case that human embryonic stem cell research always entails the destruction of embryos.»

By donating these cryopreserved embryos to research she would, she argued, make an important contribution to research into medical therapies and cures.