Embryo experimentation: is there a case for moving beyond the ‘14-day rule’

Castelyn, Grant

doi:10.1007/s40592-020-00117-x

Cited by 11 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similarly, non-future person embryo research can occasionally be contentious for reasons other than the mere fact it destroys an embryo, for example, when research on discarded embryos is potentially discriminatory, 17 frivolous or lacks positive social value. 18 …”

Section: Why Does This Distinction Matter?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Two kinds of embryo research: four case examples

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There are ethical obligations to conduct research that contributes to generalisable knowledge and improves reproductive health, and this should include embryo research in jurisdictions where it is permitted. Often, the controversial nature of embryo research can alarm ethics committee members, which can unnecessarily delay important research that can potentially improve fertility for patients and society. Such delay is ethically unjustified. Moreover, countries such as the UK, Australia and Singapore have legislation which unnecessarily captures low-risk research, such as observational research, in an often cumbersome and protracted review process. Such countries should revise such legislation to better facilitate low-risk embryo research.We introduce a philosophical distinction to help decision-makers more efficiently identify higher risk embryo research from that which presents no more risks to persons than other types of tissue research. That distinction is between future person embryo research and non-future person embryo research. We apply this distinction to four examples of embryo research that might be presented to ethics committees.Embryo research is most controversial and deserving of detailed scrutiny when it potentially affects a future person. Where it does not, it should generally require less ethical scrutiny. We explore a variety of ways in which research can affect a future person, including by deriving information about that person, and manipulating eggs or sperm before an embryo is created.

show abstract

Section: Why Does This Distinction Matter?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Two kinds of embryo research: four case examples

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…pdf]. Now regarded by some researchers as outdated [16,17], it may be on the verge of being expanded [8,18,19].…”

Section: Are Human Embryos Deserving Of Special Considerations?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Revisiting selected ethical aspects of current clinical in vitro fertilization (IVF) practice

Schondorf-Gleicher

Mochizuki

Orvieto

et al. 2022

J Assist Reprod Genet

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ethical considerations are central to all medicine though, likely, nowhere more essential than in the practice of reproductive endocrinology and infertility. Through in vitro fertilization (IVF), this is the only field in medicine involved in creating human life. IVF has, indeed, so far led to close to 10 million births worldwide. Yet, relating to substantial changes in clinical practice of IVF, the medical literature has remained surprisingly quiet over the last two decades. Major changes especially since 2010, however, call for an updated commentary. Three key changes deserve special notice: Starting out as a strictly medical service, IVF in recent years, in efforts to expand female reproductive lifespans in a process given the term “planned” oocyte cryopreservation, increasingly became more socially motivated. The IVF field also increasingly underwent industrialization and commoditization by outside financial interests. Finally, at least partially driven by industrialization and commoditization, so-called add-ons, the term describing mostly unvalidated tests and procedures added to IVF since 2010, have been held responsible for worldwide declines in fresh, non-donor live birthrates after IVF, to levels not seen since the mid-1990s. We here, therefore, do not offer a review of bioethical considerations regarding IVF as a fertility treatment, but attempt to point out ethical issues that arose because of major recent changes in clinical IVF practice.

show abstract

“…The law prohibits the use of embryos for any research unless it is specifically aimed towards improving the therapeutic and medical condition of the embryo itself [ 94 , 95 ]. Critics have pointed out the apparent paradox behind such a restriction, considering that in vivo embryos can be terminated up to 24 weeks through voluntary termination of pregnancy [ 96 ]. Some may in fact find it confusing that embryo research is required to stop so much earlier, particularly in light of the fact that it is arguably more ethically sustainable to use abandoned supernumerary embryos for research purposes that could benefit humanity, than to just dispose of them.…”

Section: Beyond Therapeutic Safety and Efficacy Genome Editing Entails Polarizing Ethical And Legal Quandariesmentioning

confidence: 99%

CRISPR-Cas and Its Wide-Ranging Applications: From Human Genome Editing to Environmental Implications, Technical Limitations, Hazards and Bioethical Issues

Piergentili

Rio

Signore

et al. 2021

Cells

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The CRISPR-Cas system is a powerful tool for in vivo editing the genome of most organisms, including man. During the years this technique has been applied in several fields, such as agriculture for crop upgrade and breeding including the creation of allergy-free foods, for eradicating pests, for the improvement of animal breeds, in the industry of bio-fuels and it can even be used as a basis for a cell-based recording apparatus. Possible applications in human health include the making of new medicines through the creation of genetically modified organisms, the treatment of viral infections, the control of pathogens, applications in clinical diagnostics and the cure of human genetic diseases, either caused by somatic (e.g., cancer) or inherited (mendelian disorders) mutations. One of the most divisive, possible uses of this system is the modification of human embryos, for the purpose of preventing or curing a human being before birth. However, the technology in this field is evolving faster than regulations and several concerns are raised by its enormous yet controversial potential. In this scenario, appropriate laws need to be issued and ethical guidelines must be developed, in order to properly assess advantages as well as risks of this approach. In this review, we summarize the potential of these genome editing techniques and their applications in human embryo treatment. We will analyze CRISPR-Cas limitations and the possible genome damage caused in the treated embryo. Finally, we will discuss how all this impacts the law, ethics and common sense.

show abstract

Embryo experimentation: is there a case for moving beyond the ‘14-day rule’

Cited by 11 publications

References 46 publications

Two kinds of embryo research: four case examples

Two kinds of embryo research: four case examples

Revisiting selected ethical aspects of current clinical in vitro fertilization (IVF) practice

CRISPR-Cas and Its Wide-Ranging Applications: From Human Genome Editing to Environmental Implications, Technical Limitations, Hazards and Bioethical Issues

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About