---

Return Human Embryo forum introduction Questions asked in this forum: Does this research place the role of God in question? Doesn't the benefits of embryo research outweigh any harm to the embryos? Does embryos have "human rights"? Should their be exceptions to the Congressional ban on human embryo research? Why did Congress overrule an NIH panel when they banned human embryo research? Additional Comments from Viewers. NewsHour Links March 10, 1997: Dr. Neal First of the University of Wisconsin and Dr. John Fletcher of the University of Virginia answer your questions about cloning. February 24, 1997:   A background report on the cloning of sheep in Scotland.  February 24, 1997:   A technical discussion on the science of genetic engineering.  February 24, 1997:   A discussion on the ethics of genetic engineering and cloning mammals.  April 3, 1996:   Fred De Sam Lazaro reports on scientific advances in genetic research and the ethical questions they raise.  OUTSIDE LINKS The Genetics and Public Issues Program at The National Center for Genome Resources (NCGR) discusses cloning.  Discussion of Ethics and Social Issues in Gene Research at the Human Genome Project.  Browse the University of Pennsylvania Center for Bioethics home page.

And, finally, The Online NewsHour editors ask: Congress passed a law banning federal human embryo research after a National Institutes of Health ethics panel drafted guidelines that would have allowed limited embryonic research. What was objectionable about the NIH guidelines that Congress decided to step in? Richard Doerflinger, National Conference of Catholic Bishops, responds: The NIH guidelines allowed a wide range of lethal experiments on human embryos in the first two to three weeks of development, and paved the way for later funding of destructive experiments at later stages. None of the experiments proposed for funding would have been beneficial or therapeutic for these particular children. The Panel even approved funding for the special creation of embryos in the laboratory for the sole purpose of experimentation and destruction -- a proposal condemned by The Washington Post and later forbidden by President Clinton. Congress rightly saw in all this an endorsement of the desires of morally immature scientists, to the detriment of any basic respect for early human life. Even many members who usually support "abortion rights" voted to ban funding of these experiments. Dr. Mark Hughes responds: In 1994, the NIH convened a panel consisting of bioethicists, sociologists, physicians, basic scientists and professionals in public policy, to examine the sensitive issues surrounding reproductive medicine and embryo research, and make recommendations about the areas of medicine and science which might be federally funded. Applications for funding would need to meet peer-review scientific muster as well as the scrutiny of a standing committee of experts which would review each grant application. A thoughtful and careful drafted set of recommendations was prepared for the NIH Director's Advisory Committee, which consists of some of the country's leading biomedical scientists. They reviewed and approved the panel's report and the President approved it, excepting one very controversial area of research involving the creation of human embryos for research. Reflecting the diversity of our country in general, there were (are) representatives at the Capitol who find any of these medical treatments or research activities to be unacceptable. Although I am not a legislative scholar, I do not believe that there were specific areas of the report which Congress found objectionable rather, it was concern regarding this entire area of research and medicine which led to an attachment to the NIH appropriations bill leading to the federal ban. Perhaps, with the current furry of public interest in sheep, monkey and potential human embryo cloning, our elected leaders will not chose to piecemeal legislate this intensely complicated field, but will use the process which has worked so admirably when America has had valid concerns in the past about controversial and potentially troubling areas of biomedicine. Continue to viewer comments...

REGIONS TOPICS RECENT PROGRAMS ABOUT US FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS / FEEDS:

Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station.
PBS Online Privacy Policy Copyright ©1996- MacNeil/Lehrer Productions. All Rights Reserved.