We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 29 July 2009
On the morning of December 2, 1994, after a preceding afternoon of discussion, the Advisory Committee to the Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) unanimously voted to approve the recommendations of the Report of the Human Embryo Research Panel. Panel members like myself who were present were elated. The vote marked the culmination of nearly a year of work. Approval of the report also represented a decisive step forward in bringing an end to a 15-year long moratorium on federally funded research on the preimplantation human embryo and techniques of in vitro fertilization.
1. 45 Code of Federal Regulations 46.204. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. 1991.Google Scholar
2. Report of the HEW Ethics Advisory Board: Research Involving In Vitro Fertilization and Embryo Transfer. Washington, DC: Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 05 4, 1979.Google Scholar
3. National Institutes of Health. Report of the Human Embryo Research Panel [Final Draft]. Bethesda, Maryland: National Institutes of Health, 09 27, 1994:85–7.Google Scholar
4. Krimsky, S, Hubbard, R. The business of research. Hastings Center Report 1995;25(1):41–2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Letter from Daryl A. Chamblee, Acting Deputy Director for Science Policy and Technology Transfer to James C. Greenwood, Member of Congress, June 9, 1994.
6. Warnock, M. A Question of Life: The Warnock Report on Human Fertilisation and Embryology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1985.Google Scholar
7. Consultants to the Advisory Committee to the Director, National Institutes of Health. Report of the Human Fetal Tissue Transplantation Research Panel. Bethesda, Maryland: National Institutes of Health, 12 1988.Google Scholar
8. Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies. Proceed with Care: Final Report of the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies, 2 Vols. Ottawa: Minister of Government Services, 1993.Google Scholar
9. See note 6. Warnock, . 1985:63.Google Scholar
10. See note 6. Warnock, . 1985:99.Google Scholar It can be argued that this reliance on a social acceptability approach has its grounds in the Warnock Report's methodological commitment to a “moral sentiment” view of ethics. See the discussion of these matters in the Warnock Report's “Introduction.”
11. See note 8. Vol 1. 1993:58.
12. Rawls, J. Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press, 1993:212–54Google Scholar; Clouser, KD. Statement of Dr. K. Danner Clouser. In: Advisory Committee to the Director, National Institutes of Health, Report of the Advisory Committee to the Director, National Institutes of Health, Human Fetal Tissue Transplantation Research, Bethesda, Maryland: National Institutes of Health, 12 14, 1988:C17–9.Google Scholar
13. Callahan, D. The puzzle of profound respect. Hastings Center Report 1995;25(1):39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14. Campbell, CS. Awe diminished. Hastings Center Report 1995;25(1):46.Google ScholarPubMed
15. See note 3. 1994:49.
16. Jonsen, AR, Toulmin, S. The Abuse of Casuistry: A History of Moral Reasoning. Berkeley, California: University of California Press, 1988.Google Scholar
17. See note 3. 1994:56.
18. See note 3. 1994:57.
19. The MacNeil/Lehrer News Hour, December 6, 1994; See also Doerflinger R. Why create embryos just to destroy them. Philadelphia Inquirer 1995;Jan 28:A9; and remarks by Kischer, C. Ward, quoted in Hoke F. President's actions on embryos drawing fire from scientists. The Scientist 1995;9:7.Google Scholar
20. See note 8. Vol 1. 1993:Chap 22.
