It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
SCI/TECH: Stem Cell embryos in UK?
page: 10
share:
Stem cell technology involving human embryos is banned in the US, and funding for legal stem cell research is limited.
US stem scientists feel that this technology is being supported better in other countries, although much of it was originally developed in America. South Korea is the world leader at the moment, while China & Israel are also very advanced in this.
news.bbc.co.uk
The rules governing 'designer babies' may soon be relaxed to allow more screening than currently permitted, according to a newspaper report.
The HFEA is carrying out the review following pressure from parents who want to create babies whose umbilical cord blood could save the life of a sibling, said the newspaper.
The Daily Telegraph said the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) may change its mind on creating babies who can help sick siblings.
The doctor who was invited to submit a test case licence application for the technique, Dr Mohammed Taranissi, said he had been "told informally" the HFEA was likely to change its policy.
Please visit the link provided for the complete story.
This technology is opposed by religious, anti-abortion & other groups on the basis of ethics and moral issues. Whether England’s HFEA policy change ever comes about for compassionate reasons [saving siblings’ lives], remains to be seen. If so, it’s bound to cause world-wide controversy.
Related News Links:
news.xinhuanet.com
www.wsws.org
www.msnbc.msn.com
[edit on 22-7-2004 by John bull 1]
US stem scientists feel that this technology is being supported better in other countries, although much of it was originally developed in America. South Korea is the world leader at the moment, while China & Israel are also very advanced in this.
news.bbc.co.uk
The rules governing 'designer babies' may soon be relaxed to allow more screening than currently permitted, according to a newspaper report.
The HFEA is carrying out the review following pressure from parents who want to create babies whose umbilical cord blood could save the life of a sibling, said the newspaper.
The Daily Telegraph said the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) may change its mind on creating babies who can help sick siblings.
The doctor who was invited to submit a test case licence application for the technique, Dr Mohammed Taranissi, said he had been "told informally" the HFEA was likely to change its policy.
Please visit the link provided for the complete story.
This technology is opposed by religious, anti-abortion & other groups on the basis of ethics and moral issues. Whether England’s HFEA policy change ever comes about for compassionate reasons [saving siblings’ lives], remains to be seen. If so, it’s bound to cause world-wide controversy.
Related News Links:
news.xinhuanet.com
www.wsws.org
www.msnbc.msn.com
[edit on 22-7-2004 by John bull 1]
CORRUPTING THE GIFT OF LIFE TO OBTAIN AN EXTENDED LIFE IS NOT WHAT GOD INTENDED WHEN HE MADE MAN STEM CELL RESEARCH IS MURDER AND DESICRATION OF GODS
GREATEST WORK MAN
There have been many voices of dissent in this matter, mainly on ethical grounds. For example,
Josephine Quintavalle, of the group Comment on Reproductive Ethics, said: "We are absolutely appalled. It is grossly unethical, and grossly undemocratic.
"This decision has been taken behind closed doors without any consultation with the public. The HFEA, who are unelected and unrepresentative, think they have the expertise to make a decision on behalf of the nation."
And Professor Jack Scarisbrick, national chairman of the pro-life charity Life, said: "We have gone yet further down the slippery slope in creating human beings to provide 'spare parts' for another."
news.bbc.co.uk...
It’s a tough call where ethics are concerned. The right-to-life groups have understandably been most vehement in their protests. I haven’t yet found anything about the various churches’ reactions to this.
On compassionate grounds, it MAY be more difficult to argue the case against the technology. But I fear abuse in the future, even although the present regulations are strict. Are we “interfering” with Nature too much?
Josephine Quintavalle, of the group Comment on Reproductive Ethics, said: "We are absolutely appalled. It is grossly unethical, and grossly undemocratic.
"This decision has been taken behind closed doors without any consultation with the public. The HFEA, who are unelected and unrepresentative, think they have the expertise to make a decision on behalf of the nation."
And Professor Jack Scarisbrick, national chairman of the pro-life charity Life, said: "We have gone yet further down the slippery slope in creating human beings to provide 'spare parts' for another."
news.bbc.co.uk...
It’s a tough call where ethics are concerned. The right-to-life groups have understandably been most vehement in their protests. I haven’t yet found anything about the various churches’ reactions to this.
On compassionate grounds, it MAY be more difficult to argue the case against the technology. But I fear abuse in the future, even although the present regulations are strict. Are we “interfering” with Nature too much?
new topics
-
'Mass Casualty event' - Attack at Christmas market in Germany
Mainstream News: 7 hours ago -
Search to Resume for MH 370
Disaster Conspiracies: 9 hours ago -
Sue Gray, Sir Keir Starmer's former Chief of Staff, Nominated for Peerage
Regional Politics: 10 hours ago -
Biden Nationalizes Another 50,000+ Student Loans as He Heads for the Exit
US Political Madness: 11 hours ago
0