Abstract
| Original language | Undefined |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 889-912 |
| Number of pages | 24 |
| Journal | Social studies of science |
| Volume | 29 |
| Issue number | 6 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 1999 |
Keywords
- METIS-149024
- IR-58261
Cite this
}
Parliamentary cultures and human embryos: the Dutch and British debates compared. / Kirejczyk, Marta.
In: Social studies of science, Vol. 29, No. 6, 1999, p. 889-912.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Academic › peer-review
TY - JOUR
T1 - Parliamentary cultures and human embryos: the Dutch and British debates compared
AU - Kirejczyk, Marta
PY - 1999
Y1 - 1999
N2 - Twenty years ago, the technology of in vitro fertilization created a new artefact: the human embryo outside the woman's body. In many countries, political debates developed around this artefact. One of the central questions in these debates is whether it is permissible to use human embryos in research and, if so, under what conditions. To date, no uniform answer to this question has been given by the governments and parliaments of the different nation states. This highlights the importance of national cultures and local dynamics in the process of crafting the space for human embryo research. In this paper I approach the issue of the national context by comparing the Dutch and British parliamentary debates on human embryos. Though some arguments used in both debates were similar, the outcomes were very different. In the UK, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act was passed in 1990. In the Netherlands, several bills on human embryos have been drafted, but each of them was withdrawn from the proceedings before reaching Parliament. To understand the processes which led to these different outcomes, I scrutinize the roles in the Netherlands of the political parties, of the scientists' lobby and of women speakers, and compare them with the findings on the UK debate. I also reflect upon the rBle played by gender in these two culturally different political contexts.
AB - Twenty years ago, the technology of in vitro fertilization created a new artefact: the human embryo outside the woman's body. In many countries, political debates developed around this artefact. One of the central questions in these debates is whether it is permissible to use human embryos in research and, if so, under what conditions. To date, no uniform answer to this question has been given by the governments and parliaments of the different nation states. This highlights the importance of national cultures and local dynamics in the process of crafting the space for human embryo research. In this paper I approach the issue of the national context by comparing the Dutch and British parliamentary debates on human embryos. Though some arguments used in both debates were similar, the outcomes were very different. In the UK, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act was passed in 1990. In the Netherlands, several bills on human embryos have been drafted, but each of them was withdrawn from the proceedings before reaching Parliament. To understand the processes which led to these different outcomes, I scrutinize the roles in the Netherlands of the political parties, of the scientists' lobby and of women speakers, and compare them with the findings on the UK debate. I also reflect upon the rBle played by gender in these two culturally different political contexts.
KW - METIS-149024
KW - IR-58261
U2 - 10.1177/030631299029006004
DO - 10.1177/030631299029006004
M3 - Article
VL - 29
SP - 889
EP - 912
JO - Social studies of science
JF - Social studies of science
SN - 0306-3127
IS - 6
ER -