A 14-day limit for bioethics: the debate over human embryo research

Abstract

BackgroundThis article explores the reasons in favour of revising and extending the current 14-day statutory limit to maintaining human embryos in culture. This limit is enshrined in law in over a dozen countries, including the United Kingdom. In two recently published studies (2016), scientists have shown that embryos can be sustained in vitro for about 13 days after fertilisation. Positive reactions to these results have gone hand in hand with calls for revising the 14-day rule, which only allows embryo research until the 14th day after fertilisation.Main textThe article explores the most prominent arguments in favour of and against the extension of the 14-day limit for conducting research on human embryos. It situates these arguments within the history of the 14-day limit. I start by discussing the history of the 14-day limit in the United Kingdom and the reasons behind the decision to opt for a compromise between competing moral views. I then analyse the arguments that those who are generally in favour of embryo research put forward in support of extending the 14-day rule, namely (a) the argument of the beneficence of research and (b) the argument of technical feasibility (further explained in the article). I then show how these two arguments played a role in the recent approval of two novel techniques for the replacement of faulty mitochondrial DNA in the United Kingdom. Despite the popularity and widespread use of these arguments, I argue that they are ultimately problematic and should not be straightforwardly accepted (i.e. accepted without further scrutiny). I end by making a case for respecting value pluralism in the context of embryo research, and I present two reasons in favour of respecting value pluralism: the argument of public trust and the argument of democracy.ConclusionI argue that 14-day limit for embryo research is not a valuable tool despite being a solution of compromise, but rather because of it. The importance of respecting value pluralism (and of respecting different views on embryo research) needs to be considered in any evaluation concerning a potential change to the 14-day rule.

Adapting the 14-day rule for embryo research to encompass evolving technologies

“…The use of the 'slippery slope' argument broadly reflects a lack of trust in science policy pathways and regulatory debates and implementations. If we were to make the consultation process transparent and informed by evidence, and engage with all views and opinions, we could increase trust to eliminate this argument (Cavaliere, 2017). Therefore, we need to engage with the public about why it is important, what scientists are doing and why they need to do this.…”

Mãe, obrigada pelos microRNAs

“…Desde o final da década de 1970, quando ocorreu o nascimento do primeiro "bebê de proveta", já é discutida a utilização de embriões remanescentes de técnicas de fertilização in vitro, e até então, esta prática é vetada. Hoje em dia, já é discutida a possibilidade de incluir embriões até o décimo quarto dia pós-fertilização em pesquisas, o que mostra um possível avanço no ramo científico 24 . Devido a estas questões éticas, o estudo de microRNAs em zigotos humanos se torna difícil, sendo mais viável a utilização de zigotos de animais.…”

Defining Practical Importance of Introducing Limitations into the Genome Editing Procedure

“…Moreover, this specificity has essential impact on the embryo immediately after its formation. After such risks had become publicly known, there were ideas about the total prohibition on editing the human genome at this stage [28]. However, by now most countries have not done it.…”