Tag Archives: Topic: Embryonic Stem Cell Research

This Essay offers a novel approach that rejects both extremes. I argue that there is no general right to use ARTs as a matter of reproductive autonomy, but there may be a limited right to use ARTs as a matter of reproductive equality. Accordingly, the government could prohibit use of a particular reproductive technology across the board for everyone; however, once the state permits use in some contexts, it should not be able to forbid use of the same technology in other contexts. Hence, all persons must possess an equal right, even if no one retains an absolute right, to use ARTs.

Perhaps as many as half of all the products of human fertilization fail to implant in the mother’s womb. Yet many pro-life thinkers, myself included, believe that a human embryo is a human person, entitled to the same moral respect as are other living members of the species, members we see walking and talking and interacting in our daily lives. This moral respect is, we hold, certainly incompatible with the deliberate taking of human life for the sake of scientific benefits for other members of the species.

As director of Stanford’s Center for Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research and Education, Renee A. Reijo Pera, 49, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology, works at ground zero of the controversy over human embryonic stem cells. She uses human embryos to create new cells that will eventually be coaxed into becoming eggs and sperm.

The first demonstration that a single adult stem cell can self-renew in a mammal was reported at the American Society for Cell Biology (ASCB) 48th Annual Meeting, Dec. 13-17, 2008 in San Francisco.

This article will examine the reasons why iPSCs are not and should not be declared the winner. It will argue that the current use of the idea of potential has degenerated into a binary construct, and that a better approach to evaluate whether we should do research on pluripotent stem cells, whether iPSCs or other kinds, is to look at slippery slope arguments.

Overall this is a helpful document with several important updates and clarifications. It should be read by all pro-lifers who pay close attention to bioethical abuses and quandaries, or who want to learn.

This paper aims at demonstrating the manner in which the recent focus of the public and legislative debate in France on the issue of embryonic stem cells has contributed to silencing the previously strong opposition to any kind of embryonic research.

For decades Charo has been a longstanding supporter of pro-choice policies and has served as an advisor to the Guttmacher Institute, a national organization involved in reproductive rights, Fost said.

This potential change underscores the stem cell research race in the name of science and cures globally, including two recent reports in England and Iran. Universally, two prime debatable issues in the mix are ethics and measurable results.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops is expressing concern that the next president will lift the ban on government funding of stem cell research.

Tuesday’s election will be remembered for its “impact on core bioethical topics that have long dominated American domestic politics,” including abortion rights and embryonic stem cell research, Arthur Caplan — director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania — writes in an MSNBC.com opinion piece.

Saying that the stem cells produced by the destruction of embryos “serve no purpose,” he argued that embryonic stem cell research has not resulted in any significant cures so far and was “good for nothing.”

What should the new president do? Obama should minimize opposition by following the lead President Bush established in 2001. In justifying his policy of funding research on a limited number of human embryonic stem cell lines, Bush stated that “the life and death decision” had already been made on the embryos used to create those lines.

This is not a call to arms. It is American reality, 2008. Obama’s impressive victory didn’t change the alignments overnight and, if he wants to make good on his promises to heal America’s divisions, he needs to recognize that what still divides us is more than skin deep.

With U.S. commentators focused almost exclusively on the Presidential and Congressional elections, turning only to other matters as and when they seemed likely to influence the polling, it is unsurprising that recent events here in Britain have gone largely unremarked.

The issue of stem cell research, while not at the forefront of this year’s presidential campaign, has surfaced in political advertisements and again during Wednesday’s presidential debate – casting a potentially revolutionary field of scientific research into the political spotlight once again.

The stem cells offer another potential alternative to embryonic stem cells for researchers who aim to treat diseases such as diabetes and Parkinson’s by replacing damaged or malfunctioning cells with custom-grown replacements.

The issue of ownership of embryos after divorce was recently raised again during the Texas divorce trial in the case Roman v. Roman when Mr. and Mrs. Roman’s mediated settlement agreement failed to cover the couple’s embryos.

The Catholic bishops’ conference of New Zealand has offered voters guidance on the expected election, saying that social and economic policies must be “in the service of human dignity and a humane society, in which every person matters.”

This Note analyzes the threshold question of whether terminally ill patients have a fundamental right of access to stem cell treatments.

Our political debates about stem cell research in recent years have stood in a peculiar relation to public opinion. Rather than seek to marshal public sentiment, or even quite build public support, all sides have wanted to claim a preexisting bedrock of widely shared attitudes backing their favored policy outcome.

In an effort to get researchers to think adult stem cells first, several people who were helped by the ethical research are speaking out.

The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights and the Public Patent Foundation argue the patenting has driven some scientists overseas because they can’t profit from any follow-up work.

“A new article in the Journal of the American Medical Association makes it clear adult stem cell research is leading the way in providing tangible assistant to patients with a variety of ailments.”

LifeNews reports (2.17.2008): The new direct reprogramming method of turning skin or other types of cells into those that have embryonic-like properties has overcome more hurdles. Professor Shinya Yamanaka announced this weekend that his team has found a way to …

William Saletan says no. Robert George, a member of President Bush’s bioethics council, and his colleague Christopher Tollefsen say yes.

The chief executive of biotech Geron said Monday that trials with embryonic stem cells await FDA approval.

Researchers at UCLA have become the first in the state to successfully create skin cells that can be used to treat a number of fatal or debilitating conditions without the use of human embryos or eggs.

“Looking back on his presidency, Bush said he was proud that he kept the federal government from crossing an important moral line and allowing federal funding of new embryonic stem cell research involving the destruction of human life.”

Christianity.ca, Douglas Cryer, 7.12.2007