Parry Sarah
Science Studies Unit, Department of Sociology, University of Edinburgh, 21 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.
New Genet Soc. 2003 Aug;22(2):145-68. doi: 10.1080/14636770307135.
In April 2001, the 1990 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act (HFE Act) was amended to allow stem cell research to use human embryos. By identifying what Mulkay calls "discursive regularities" [Mulkay, M. (1993) Rhetorics of hope and fear in the great embryo debate, Social Studies of Science, 23, p. 723], this paper examines the rhetorical strategies of and manoeuvrings over the meanings of stem cells, cloning, and embryos within the parliamentary context. I focus upon the "return to the embryo question" and the significance" of this for the stem cell debates in terms of form and content. This feeds into an analysis of the ways in which two specific groups are discursively invoked and constructed--those with diseases and disabilities who have been identified as likely to benefit from stem cell therapies, and couples undergoing fertility treatment who are needed to donate spare embryos. In doing so, I draw upon similar analyses of the earlier embryo debates--those of Mulkay, Franklin, Kirejcyk and Spallone--leading up to the establishment of the 1990 HFE Act. In conjunction with these analyses, I am able to identify parallels between the rhetorical devices mobilized and the legislative outcomes.
2001年4月，1990年的《人类受精与胚胎学法》（HFE法）进行了修订，允许干细胞研究使用人类胚胎。通过识别马尔凯所谓的“话语规律”[马尔凯，M.（1993年）《伟大胚胎辩论中的希望与恐惧修辞学》，《科学的社会研究》，第23卷，第723页]，本文考察了议会背景下关于干细胞、克隆和胚胎的含义的修辞策略及策略运用。我关注“回到胚胎问题”以及这在形式和内容方面对干细胞辩论的“意义”。这有助于分析两个特定群体在话语中是如何被援引和构建的——那些被认为可能从干细胞疗法中受益的疾病和残疾患者，以及需要捐赠多余胚胎的接受生育治疗的夫妇。在此过程中，我借鉴了对早期胚胎辩论的类似分析——马尔凯、富兰克林、基雷奇克和斯帕洛内的分析——这些分析直至1990年HFE法的制定。结合这些分析，我能够识别所运用的修辞手段与立法结果之间的相似之处。
