PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Human Embryo Research Panel”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 73 records · Page 4Linked to original sources
PubMed2004

What is an embryo?

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Advisory Committees↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Awe diminished.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Advisory Committees↗
PubMed1996

Arguing along the slippery slope of human embryo research.

One frequent argument in the debate over federal funding of human embryo research is the slippery slope argument. Slope arguments can be of several types: either logical, empirical, or full (a combination of logical and empirical slope arguments, with an additional psychological premise). A full slope argument against human embryo research suggests that funding embryo research could undermine current protections for human subjects research, erode respect for persons with disabilities, and encourage eugenics practices. While the Panel commissioned by the National Institutes of Health to issue funding guidelines regarding human embryo research acknowledges some slippery slope concerns, the Panel's final report fails to address such concerns in any depth. Given this failure seriously to address these valid concerns, federal funding of embryo research should not proceed at this time.

Advisory Committees↗
PubMed1995

US public policy on embryo research: two steps forward, one large step back.

This article gives an overview of the final report of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Embryo Research Panel, which was issued on September 27, 1994 (NIH, 1994). The report was endorsed unanimously by the Advisory Committee to the Director of the NIH, Harold Varmus, on December 2, 1994. A few hours later, President Clinton (Marshall, 1994) issued a statement announcing that he did 'not believe that federal funds should be used to support the creation of human embryos for research purposes', and that he had directed the NIH not to support such research, which was one of the areas of research recommended for Federal funding by the Panel. At present, Dr Varmus is in the process of considering the Panel's report and shaping guidelines to govern the review and conduct of human embryo research. Any guidelines will be published in the Federal Register for comment at a later date. As a result of changes brought about by Congress in 1993, Federal support for research focused on in-vitro fertilization (IVF) could go forward. This represented the first advance in research freedom in the Federal sector to study approaches to IVF. It will involve the NIH in peer review and scientific activities regarding IVF. Assuming that Dr Varmus develops guidelines to support human embryo research limited to use of 'spare' embryos only and perhaps parthenogenotes, a second step will have been taken. My view about the context and meaning of the President's decision, which is nonetheless a decided step to the rear, appears in the final part.

Fertilization in Vitro↗