Oncofertility Consortium, Northwestern University, 303 E. Superior, Chicago, IL 60611, USA.
Am J Bioeth. 2011 Mar;11(3):20-8. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2010.546472.
In 1996 Congress passed the Dickey-Wicker Amendment (DWA) as part of an appropriations bill; it has been renewed every year since. The DWA bans federal funding for research using embryos and parthenotes. In this paper, we call for a public discussion on parthenote research and a questioning of its inclusion in the DWA. We begin by explaining what parthenotes are and why they are useful for research on reproduction, cancer, and stem cells. We then argue that the scientific difference between embryos and parthenotes translates into ethical differences, and claim that research on parthenotes is much less ethically problematic. Finally, we contextualize the original passage of the DWA to provide an explanation for why the two were possibly conflated in this law. We conclude by calling for a public discussion on reconsidering the DWA in its entirety, starting with the removal of parthenogenesis from this prohibition of National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding.
1996 年,国会通过了迪克西-威克修正案(DWA)作为拨款法案的一部分;自那以后,该修正案每年都得到续签。DWA 禁止使用胚胎和孤雌生殖体进行联邦资金资助的研究。在本文中,我们呼吁就孤雌生殖体研究进行公开讨论,并质疑其被纳入 DWA 的合理性。我们首先解释了什么是孤雌生殖体,以及为什么它们对生殖、癌症和干细胞研究很有用。然后我们认为,胚胎和孤雌生殖体之间的科学差异转化为伦理差异,并声称孤雌生殖体研究在伦理上的问题要少得多。最后,我们将 DWA 的原始文本置于上下文中,以解释为什么这两者在该法律中可能被混淆。我们最后呼吁就 DWA 进行全面重新考虑进行公开讨论,首先是从美国国立卫生研究院(NIH)资金的禁止中删除孤雌生殖。