Stem cell research

a target article collection: Part II--what's in a name: embryos, clones, and stem cells.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 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)
JournalThe American journal of bioethics : AJOB
Volume2
Issue number1
StatePublished - Dec 2002

Fingerprint

Stem Cell Research
Names
Organism Cloning
embryo
clone
Stem Cells
Embryonic Structures
Clone Cells
stem
Research Subjects
Cell Line
Research
cloning
Therapeutics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law

Cite this

@article{eceb6312e0574992a26084f18074c910,
title = "Stem cell research: a target article collection: 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",
month = "12",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "2",
journal = "American Journal of Bioethics",
issn = "1526-5161",
publisher = "Routledge",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Stem cell research

T2 - a target article collection: Part II--what's in a name: embryos, clones, and stem cells.

AU - Maienschein, Jane

PY - 2002/12

Y1 - 2002/12

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=19044364510&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=19044364510&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 2

JO - American Journal of Bioethics

JF - American Journal of Bioethics

SN - 1526-5161

IS - 1

ER -