Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-f46jp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-11T03:34:27.419Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Discourse on Embryo Science and Human Cloning in the United States and Great Britain: 1984–2002

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Matthew Weed
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

There is a stark difference between American and British policy on embryo science and research cloning. The following survey of the discourse offered both in support of and in opposition to research cloning and embryo science in the United States and Great Britain will show that the same arguments were made in both countries. The fact that similar ethical argumentation occurred in environments where different policy was set is an indicator that current frames for ethical discourse on embryonic stem cell research and human cloning do not effectively capture the debate in the form that politicians and possible consumers of services to be derived from embryo science face.

The ethics surrounding embryo research and human cloning have been presented from virtually every possible viewpoint in all forms of medium. It is impossible to reprise every argument made on embryo science and research cloning; therefore, this survey will focus on some of the arguments made during the time leading up to the enactment of Great Britain's Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act of 1990 and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology regulations added to it in 2001.

Type
Article
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 33 , Issue 4 , Winter 2005 , pp. 802 - 810
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

The Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority (HFEA), Ninth Annual Report and Accounts (London: HFEA, 2000); The Human Fertilization and Embryology (Research Purposes) Regulations, “Statutory Instrument” no. 188 (London: Queen's Printer of Acts of Parliament, January 2001).Google Scholar
The Human Fertilization and Embryology (Research Purposes) Regulations, supra note 1.Google Scholar
The President's Council on Bioethics (PCB), “The Ethics of Cloning for Biomedical Research,” in Human Cloning and Human Dignity: An Ethical Inquiry (Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office, 2002): Chapter 6; Bush, G., Executive Order 13237, Creation of the President's Council on Bioethics (Washington, DC: The White House, November 28, 2001).Google Scholar
PCB, supra note 3.Google Scholar
Warnock, M., “Human Embryos and Research” and “Regulating Infertility Services and Research,” in Report of the Committee of Enquiry into Human Fertilisation and Embryology (London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, July 1984): Chapters 11 and 13.Google Scholar
HFEA, supra note 1.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Warnock, supra note 5, at 64.Google Scholar
National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC), “Conclusions and Recommendations,” Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission, vol. 1 (Rockville, MD: U. S. Government Printing Office, September 1999): Chapter 5.Google Scholar
Lanza, R. P. et al, “The Ethical Validity of Using Nuclear Transfer in Human Transplantation,” JAMA 284 (2000): 3175–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
The Human Fertilization and Embryology (Research Purposes) Regulations, supra note 1.Google Scholar
Patel, N., “House of Lords Parliamentary Debate,” Hansard 621 (2001): Column 58.Google Scholar
PCB, supra note 3.Google Scholar
Patel, supra note 13, column 58.Google Scholar
Oxford, R., “House of Lords Parliamentary Debate,” Hansard 621 (2001): Column 37.Google Scholar
PCB, supra note 3.Google Scholar
Ethics Advisory Board (EAB), Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Report and Conclusions: HEW Support of Research Involving Human Fertilization and Embryo Transfer (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1979)Google Scholar
Warnock, M., supra note 5, at 64.Google Scholar
The Human Fertilization and Embryology Act (HFE Act) (London: The Stationery Office Limited, 1990): Column 37, Schedule 41.Google Scholar
PCB, supra note 3.Google Scholar
HFE Act, supra note 20.Google Scholar
Taverne, D., “House of Lords Parliamentary Debate,” Hansard 621 (2001): Column 64.Google Scholar
PCB, supra note 3.Google Scholar
Weed, M., Embryos, Cloning and Controversy: A Comparative Analysis of Research Policy in the United States and Great Britain (Ph.D. dissertation: Yale University, 2004).Google Scholar
Carriline, M., Marshall, J., and Walker, J., “Use of Human Embryos in Research,” Report of the Committee of Enquiry into Human Fertilization and Embryology, Department of Health and Social Security (London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1984): 90–93.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Peel, J., “After the Embryo the Fetus?” Embryo and Ethics: The Warnock Report in Debate, Cameron, N., ed. (Edinburgh: Rutherford House Books, 1987): Chapter 8.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
White, R. J., “Human Cloning Research [Correspondence],” N. Engl. J. Med. 338 (1998): 1770–71.Google Scholar
Doerflinger, R. M., “The Ethics of Funding Embryonic Stem Cell Research: A Catholic Viewpoint,” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 9 (1999): 137–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
PCB, supra note 3.Google Scholar
Alton, D., “House of Lords Parliamentary Debate,” Hansard 621 (2001): Column 28.Google Scholar
Williams, S., “House of Lords Parliamentary Debate,” Hansard 621 (2001): Column 48.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
PCB, supra note 3.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Annas, G. J., “Scientific Discoveries and Cloning: Challenges for Public Policy,” The Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Public Health and Safety, Committee on Labor and Human Resources, United States Senate, March 12, 1997.Google Scholar
The Human Fertilization and Embryology (Research Purposes) Regulations, supra note 1.Google Scholar
Brennan, D., “House of Lords Parliamentary Debate,” Hansard 621 (2001): Column 84.Google Scholar
Blatch, E., “House of Lords Parliamentary Debate,” Hansard 621 (2001): Column 86.Google Scholar
PCB, supra note 3.Google Scholar
Chalmers, G., “The Warnock Report: A View from the Other End,” Embryos and Ethics: The Warnock Report in Debate, Cameron, N., ed., (Edinburgh: Rutherford House Books, 1987): Chapter 10.Google Scholar
PCB, supra note 3.Google Scholar
Carriline, et al, supra note 26.Google Scholar
Alton, D., “House of Lords Parliamentary Debate” Hansard 621 (2001): Column 29.Google Scholar
PCB, supra note 3.Google Scholar
Peel, supra note 28.Google Scholar
PCB, supra note 3.Google Scholar
Mulkay, M., “Women and Men,” The Embryo Research Debate: Science and the Politics of Reproduction (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997): Chapter 6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), “Letter to Senators,” June 6,2002, available at <http://www.nrlc.org/Killing_Embryos/SpecterLetter060602.html> (last visited September 1, 2005).+(last+visited+September+1,+2005).>Google Scholar