The Argument from Potentiality in the Embryo Protection Debate: Finally “Depotentialized”?

Stier, Marco; Schoene-Seifert, Bettina

doi:10.1080/15265161.2012.743619

Cited by 32 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…While legislators may have intended 'the potential to develop into a human being' to mean active potentiality, it has been argued that this concept is no longer tenable in view of recent technological advancements (Stier and Schoene-Seifert, 2013). In particular, these advancements do not only show how very different types of human cells may be converted into 'baby-precursors', but they also emphasize the extent to which, even in standard human reproduction, embryo development is dependent upon 'innumerable external biochemical triggers' (Stier and Schoene-Seifert, 2013). In this sense, there appears to be no difference between the potential of a skin cell, a pluripotent stem cell, or a zygote: with the right kind of external triggers, each can be made to develop into a human being.…”

Section: Are Els Embryos?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Modelling human embryogenesis: embryo-like structures spark ethical and policy debate

Popovic

Wert

Bustos

et al. 2020

Human Reproduction Update

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND Studying the human peri-implantation period remains hindered by the limited accessibility of the in vivo environment and scarcity of research material. As such, continuing efforts have been directed towards developing embryo-like structures (ELS) from pluripotent stem cells (PSCs) that recapitulate aspects of embryogenesis in vitro. While the creation of such models offers immense potential for studying fundamental processes in both pre- and early post-implantation development, it also proves ethically contentious due to wide-ranging views on the moral and legal reverence due to human embryos. Lack of clarity on how to qualify and regulate research with ELS thus presents a challenge in that it may either limit this new field of research without valid grounds or allow it to develop without policies that reflect justified ethical concerns. OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE The aim of this article is to provide a comprehensive overview of the existing scientific approaches to generate ELS from mouse and human PSCs, as well as discuss future strategies towards innovation in the context of human development. Concurrently, we aim to set the agenda for the ethical and policy issues surrounding research on human ELS. SEARCH METHODS The PubMed database was used to search peer-reviewed articles and reviews using the following terms: ‘stem cells’, ‘pluripotency’, ‘implantation’, ‘preimplantation’, ‘post-implantation’, ‘blastocyst’, ‘embryoid bodies’, ‘synthetic embryos’, ‘embryo models’, ‘self-assembly’, ‘human embryo-like structures’, ‘artificial embryos’ in combination with other keywords related to the subject area. The PubMed and Web of Science databases were also used to systematically search publications on the ethics of ELS and human embryo research by using the aforementioned keywords in combination with ‘ethics’, ‘law’, ‘regulation’ and equivalent terms. All relevant publications until December 2019 were critically evaluated and discussed. OUTCOMES In vitro systems provide a promising way forward for uncovering early human development. Current platforms utilize PSCs in both two- and three-dimensional settings to mimic various early developmental stages, including epiblast, trophoblast and amniotic cavity formation, in addition to axis development and gastrulation. Nevertheless, much hinges on the term ‘embryo-like’. Extension of traditional embryo frameworks to research with ELS reveals that (i) current embryo definitions require reconsideration, (ii) cellular convertibility challenges the attribution of moral standing on the basis of ‘active potentiality’ and (iii) meaningful application of embryo protective directives will require rethinking of the 14-day culture limit and moral weight attributed to (non-)viability. Many conceptual and normative (dis)similarities between ELS and embryos thus remain to be thoroughly elucidated. WIDER IMPLICATIONS Modelling embryogenesis holds vast potential for both human developmental biology and understanding various etiologies associated with infertility. To date, ELS have been shown to recapitulate several aspects of peri-implantation development, but critically, cannot develop into a fetus. Yet, concurrent to scientific innovation, considering the extent to which the use of ELS may raise moral concerns typical of human embryo research remains paramount. This will be crucial for harnessing the potential of ELS as a valuable research tool, whilst remaining within a robust moral and legal framework of professionally acceptable practices.

show abstract

Section: Are Els Embryos?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Modelling human embryogenesis: embryo-like structures spark ethical and policy debate

Popovic

Wert

Bustos

et al. 2020

Human Reproduction Update

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…3, p. 38 and p. 47). On a completely different level, the RHERP committee also acknowledged two abstract capacities with a long history of discussion in the embryo ethics literature—the entry into a state of individuality associated with the loss of the ability of embryos to twin or aggregate (Diamond, 1975; Donceel, 1970; Gilbert, 2008; Montague, 2011; Munthe, 2001), and the developmental potential of zygotes and early embryos (see, e.g., Stier and Schoene-Seifert, 2013)—but did not appear to see these as decisively supporting the PS as a research limit (National Institutes of Health, 1994, chap. 3, pp.…”

Section: Basing Research Limits For Sheefs Directly On the Moral Stmentioning

confidence: 99%

Addressing the ethical issues raised by synthetic human entities with embryo-like features

Aach

Lunshof

Iyer

et al. 2017

eLife

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The "14-day rule" for embryo research stipulates that experiments with intact human embryos must not allow them to develop beyond 14 days or the appearance of the primitive streak. However, recent experiments showing that suitably cultured human pluripotent stem cells can self-organize and recapitulate embryonic features have highlighted difficulties with the 14-day rule and led to calls for its reassessment. Here we argue that these and related experiments raise more foundational issues that cannot be fixed by adjusting the 14-day rule, because the framework underlying the rule cannot adequately describe the ways by which synthetic human entities with embryo-like features (SHEEFs) might develop morally concerning features through altered forms of development. We propose that limits on research with SHEEFs be based as directly as possible on the generation of such features, and recommend that the research and bioethics communities lead a wide-ranging inquiry aimed at mapping out solutions to the ethical problems raised by them.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.20674.001

show abstract

“…For the sake of consistency, if hiPSC as well as human somatic cells have developmental potential, PA ought to already place every human somatic cell under the protection of life and dignity (absurd extension argument). 42 Moreover, as tetraploid complementation assay also succeeded using mammalian pSC in 2009, the same conclusion is valid for hpSC and human parthenotes. 43 Curiously, the ethical debate on human parthenotes has a strong focus on their developmental potential while neglecting the developmental potential of hpSC.…”

Section: Totipotency As a Normative Protection Criterion: Are Hipsc Rmentioning

confidence: 66%

Ways Out of the Patenting Prohibition? Human Parthenogenetic and Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells

Schickl

Braun

2017

Bioethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

According to the judgement of the European Court of Justice in 2014, human parthenogenetic stem cells are excluded from the patenting prohibition of procedures based on hESC by the European Biopatent Directive, because human parthenotes are not human embryos. This article is based on the thesis that in light of the technological advances in the field of stem cell research, the attribution of the term ‘human embryo’ to certain entities on a descriptive level as well as the attribution of a normative protection status to certain entities based on the criterion of totipotency, are becoming increasingly unclear. The example of human parthenotes in particular demonstrates that totipotency is not at all a necessary condition for the attribution of the term ‘human embryo’. Furthermore, the example of hiPSC and somatic cells particularly shows that totipotency is also not a sufficient condition for the attribution of a normative protection status to certain entities. Therefore, it is not a suitable criterion for distinguishing between human embryos worthy of protection and human non‐embryos not worthy of protection. Consequently, this conclusion has repercussions for the patenting question. The strict delineation between an ethically problematic commercial use of human embryos and the concomitant patenting prohibition of hESC‐based procedures and an ethically unproblematic commercial use of human non‐embryos and the therefore either unrestrictedly permitted (cf. human parthenotes) or even unregulated (cf. hiPSC) patenting of procedures based on these alleged alternatives becomes increasingly blurred.

show abstract

The Argument from Potentiality in the Embryo Protection Debate: Finally “Depotentialized”?

Cited by 32 publications

References 27 publications

Modelling human embryogenesis: embryo-like structures spark ethical and policy debate

Modelling human embryogenesis: embryo-like structures spark ethical and policy debate

Addressing the ethical issues raised by synthetic human entities with embryo-like features

Ways Out of the Patenting Prohibition? Human Parthenogenetic and Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About