Sarah Jessica Rodriguez

Melanie was 29-years-old, married, and hoping to start a family when she discovered a lump in her pelvis. She was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma. But one of her biggest fears upon learning of her diagnosis was the possibility of loosing her ability to have children. When Melanie asked her oncologist and radiation oncologist about the risk cancer treatment posed to her fertility, they told her it was small, as only one ovary would be destroyed during the radiation. Deciding to ask for another opinion, she sought out a reproductive endocrinologist, who told her, contrary to what her oncologists had said, that women like her typically did have problems conceiving after radiation treatment on their pelvis. One of the hardest parts of dealing with her dual diagnosis, Melanie later recalled, was the unknown: “I didn't know if my treatment would definitely render me infertile.”

In 1996 Congress passed the Dickey–Wicker Amendment 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 funding.