Part ii- what’s in a name

Embryos, clones, and stem cells

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

20 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In 2001, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the "Human Cloning Prohibition Act" and President Bush announced his decision to allow only limited research on existing stem cell lines but not on " embryos." In contrast, the U.K. has explicitly authorized "therapeutic cloning." Much more will be said about bioethical, legal, and social implications, but subtleties of the science and careful definitions of terms have received much less consideration. Legislators and reporters struggle to discuss "cloning," "pluripotency," " stem cells," and " embryos," and whether " adult" are preferable to " embryonic" stem cells as research subjects. They profess to abhor " copying humans" or " killing embryos." Do they know what they are talking about? Do we? This paper explores the historical, philosophical, and scientific contexts that inform this heated discussion.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)12-19
Number of pages8
JournalAmerican Journal of Bioethics
Volume2
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - 2002

Fingerprint

Names
Organism Cloning
Stem Cells
Embryonic Structures
Clone Cells
Research Subjects
Stem Cell Research
Cell Line
Research
Therapeutics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Issues, ethics and legal aspects
  • Health Policy

Cite this

Part ii- what’s in a name : Embryos, clones, and stem cells. / Maienschein, Jane.

In: American Journal of Bioethics, Vol. 2, No. 1, 2002, p. 12-19.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{8edcadf74477471cac864b414a5e2cb4,
title = "Part ii- what’s in a name: Embryos, clones, and stem cells",
abstract = "In 2001, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the {"}Human Cloning Prohibition Act{"} and President Bush announced his decision to allow only limited research on existing stem cell lines but not on {"} embryos.{"} In contrast, the U.K. has explicitly authorized {"}therapeutic cloning.{"} Much more will be said about bioethical, legal, and social implications, but subtleties of the science and careful definitions of terms have received much less consideration. Legislators and reporters struggle to discuss {"}cloning,{"} {"}pluripotency,{"} {"} stem cells,{"} and {"} embryos,{"} and whether {"} adult{"} are preferable to {"} embryonic{"} stem cells as research subjects. They profess to abhor {"} copying humans{"} or {"} killing embryos.{"} Do they know what they are talking about? Do we? This paper explores the historical, philosophical, and scientific contexts that inform this heated discussion.",
author = "Jane Maienschein",
year = "2002",
doi = "10.1162/152651602317267781",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "2",
pages = "12--19",
journal = "American Journal of Bioethics",
issn = "1526-5161",
publisher = "Routledge",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Part ii- what’s in a name

T2 - Embryos, clones, and stem cells

AU - Maienschein, Jane

PY - 2002

Y1 - 2002

N2 - In 2001, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the "Human Cloning Prohibition Act" and President Bush announced his decision to allow only limited research on existing stem cell lines but not on " embryos." In contrast, the U.K. has explicitly authorized "therapeutic cloning." Much more will be said about bioethical, legal, and social implications, but subtleties of the science and careful definitions of terms have received much less consideration. Legislators and reporters struggle to discuss "cloning," "pluripotency," " stem cells," and " embryos," and whether " adult" are preferable to " embryonic" stem cells as research subjects. They profess to abhor " copying humans" or " killing embryos." Do they know what they are talking about? Do we? This paper explores the historical, philosophical, and scientific contexts that inform this heated discussion.

AB - In 2001, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the "Human Cloning Prohibition Act" and President Bush announced his decision to allow only limited research on existing stem cell lines but not on " embryos." In contrast, the U.K. has explicitly authorized "therapeutic cloning." Much more will be said about bioethical, legal, and social implications, but subtleties of the science and careful definitions of terms have received much less consideration. Legislators and reporters struggle to discuss "cloning," "pluripotency," " stem cells," and " embryos," and whether " adult" are preferable to " embryonic" stem cells as research subjects. They profess to abhor " copying humans" or " killing embryos." Do they know what they are talking about? Do we? This paper explores the historical, philosophical, and scientific contexts that inform this heated discussion.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85012564645&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85012564645&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1162/152651602317267781

DO - 10.1162/152651602317267781

M3 - Article

VL - 2

SP - 12

EP - 19

JO - American Journal of Bioethics

JF - American Journal of Bioethics

SN - 1526-5161

IS - 1

ER -