Abstract

As the debate about research on foetal tissue transplantation progressed, medical scientists learned more about the procedure and its potential for helping persons with degenerative brain disorders such as Parkinson's disease. Increased scientific knowledge significantly influenced the political process, yet it did not by any means resolve the debate. Rather, increased medical evidence served as a lens which focused discourse on particular issues related to foetal research, such as the details of obtaining informed consent, as well as technical matters related to tissue transplantation, for example, that the creation of a tissue bank was unreasonable, and that foetuses of certain ages were required for the procedure. This increased focus changed the character of the debate on foetal tissue transplantation research, and convinced some law-makers that they should encourage financial support for the research despite their anti-abortion political views.The heart of the stalemate on transplantation research lay in rigid attachment to particular arguments, which in turn resulted in the disunity of the participants; this was compounded by the lack of persuasive scientific evidence that foetal tissue transplantation could significantly benefit those with Parkinson's disease. Privately supported clinical studies answered several important clinical questions while the ban on federal support remained in effect, however, and increased scientific knowledge was soon followed by an increasingly clear analysis of the relevant issues. By the time federal support for the research was permitted, the arguments of all of the interest groups had been altered by the findings of privately supported studies.As research continues under the auspices of a somewhat more permissive administration, these refined arguments and attitudes may continue to contribute to a stronger and more clearly defined public policy