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.
Freeman
J S
JS
Institutional Review Board, Connecticut Children's Medical Center, USA.
D026683:Advisory Committees; D033041:Embryo Research; D004622:Embryo, Mammalian; D026689:Ethical Analysis; D017041:Ethics Committees; D004992:Ethics, Medical; D035082:Federal Government; D005260:Female; D033161:Government Regulation; D006805:Human Experimentation; D006801:Humans; D007231:Infant, Newborn; D011247:Pregnancy; D035845:Research Embryo Creation; D012109:Research Support as Topic / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D014481:United States; D035761:Wedge Argument