When Governor Davis signed a bill this week authorizing stem cell research in California，he set the stage for possible conflict with the federal government.Behind this polarized controversy，too often，lurk false absolutes that prevent good public policy decisions.

The first false absolute is that it‘s always morally wrong to destroy human embryos，because extracorporeal human embryos (that is，embryos existing outside the human body) have the same moral status as human persons.The other unsound absolute is that it’s in no way whatsoever morally problematic to destroy embryos，because they have no moral worth at all;in short，destroying embryos is morally trivial.Fortunately，an alternative moral view to these two problematic positions exists.On this middle view，human embryos should be recognized as having modest moral worth.Consequently we must have serious reasons to destroy them，and in such a case we must show respect for them when we destroy them.

A classic example of such a view is seen in native American hunting cultures，1ike the Cree or the Micmac，when the hunters express genuine respect for the animals they destroy.This expression of respect can vary from apologizing to the animal before killing it to avoiding any waste associated with its use.Often the killing itself，or the eating or the later burying of the animal‘s remains，was also done in a way that sincerely demonstrated this respect.Combining such respect with the intent to destroy is neither an ethical paradox nor a sign of hypocrisy.Instead these people knew both that they had good reasons to kill animals and also that doing so was not morally trivial.

Closer to home is the deferential treatment shown to human bodies in medical schools.Respect is shown to the body that will be dissected and destroyed by holding memorial services prior to burial or cremation of these human remains.The aim here is the recognition that even the dead human body is worthy of respect in spite of our justifiable destruction of it.The importance of such respect is only highlighted by the moral outrage generated by recent stories where deplorable treatment has been shown to bodies.In short，we should genuinely respect a body even while destroying it.

What does this way of avoiding the familiar moral absolutes mean for embryos that could be used for therapeutic purposes? As destroying human embryos is neither tantamount to murder nor morally without cost，then destroying them in vital cases of therapeutic cloning can be justified.But it is only justified when done in a way respectful of the loss of a human entity with moral value.Such respectful destruction also acknowledges some of the genuine ethical concerns of those who believe this destruction is morally very serious.

Instead of banning therapeutic cloning or accepting just any use of embryos，we suggest adopting the following practices.Scientists should handle embryos with great respect and this should never be an empty or insincere gesture.This display of moral consideration should include acquiring only the minimum number of embryos required for research and disposing of their remains in a genuinely respectful way.Society should also avoid allowing human embryos to be treated as property by outlawing the buying and selling of them.While extracorporeal human embryos do not have the same moral status as born human beings，there are serious reasons to accord them some modest moral status.In this way our scientific progress need not require the hardening of our hearts.

1.It can be inferred from the passage that the President of the United States____.

[A] hesitates in making decisions concerning stem cell research

[B] insists that embryos have the same moral status as human persons

[C] does not lend his support to the use of human embryos

[D] is authorized to resolve the conflict of ideas concerning stem cell research

2.Of the three positions mentioned in the second paragraph，the author is in favor of____.

[A] the first one [B] the second one

[C] the third one [D] none of them

3.As far as the dispute mentioned in the text is concerned，the“ethical paradox”may refer to the practice of____.

[A] saying one thing but doing another

[B] showing deference when destroying a thing

[C] doing immoral things while claiming to be morally justified

[D] providing good but trivial reasons for killing animals

4，Showing respect to human embryos means all of the following EXCEPT____.

[A] using as few of them as possible in research

[B] putting an end to trading them

[C] acknowledging their value for therapeutic research

[D] handling their remains with due care

5.The author seems to suggest that therapeutic cloning____.

[A] should be banned [B] should be practiced

[C] should be encouraged [D] should be accorded with its due value

1.[C] 意为：不支持人类胚胎的使用。注意，这是一个推理题，本文并没有直接提到美国总统的态度，但是第一段中提到了美国联邦政府的态度，作为政府首脑，美国政府的态度当然也就是美国总统的态度。

[D]意为：被授权解决涉及干细胞研究的观念冲突。

2.[C]在使用胚胎做研究问题上，存在两种相互对立的观点，作者认为这两种观点都太极端，他支持一种“中间道路”立场(middle view)。

3.[B] 意为：毁掉一件东西时对之表示尊重。第三段第四句中提到的“伦理悖论”，实际上就是指“combining such respect with the intent to destroy”，这也是本文作者旨在说明的观点。[C] 意为：做不道德的事情但又声称自己道德正当。

4.[C] 意为：承认它们对医疗研究的价值。最后一段第三句提到要尽量少地使用胚胎做研究，并以尊重的方式处理死后的胚胎，因此选择项[A]和[D]是正确的;最后一段第四句提到要禁止买卖胚胎，因此选择项[B]表达的意思也与文章相符。

5.[B] 意为：可以进行。最后一段第一句明确提到，作者并不赞成禁止克隆研究。实际上，整篇文章谈的都是克隆研究的问题，作者并不反对这种研究，只是提醒人们在做这样的研究时应该注意一些道德伦理问题。[D]意为：应该被赋予其应有的价值。