Two kinds of embryo research: four case examples

Abstract

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.

Risk stratification: an important tool in the special review of research using oocytes and embryos

“…A risk-stratified framework must be sensitive to all relevant forms of risk that can obtain from a study. Savulescu et al focus on one central form of risk–risk to future children, such as deleterious long-term health effects from manipulation of embryos 1. This risk indeed does not obtain for research where embryos or gametes would not be implanted.…”

“…The preceding is somewhat abstract, so in table 1 we have offered potential ways in which a risk-stratified review approach may be applied to the case studies provided by Savulescu et al 1. We add a fifth case study to explicitly cover the example of gene editing that they raise.…”

“…Like all research, embryo research can take a variety of forms, some posing substantially more risks to persons than others. Savulescu et al argue persuasively that regulatory regimes specially designed for sensitive embryo research should differentiate between person-affecting and non-person-affecting embryo research, with substantial scrutiny only warranted for the former 1. Yet if we find Savulescu et al ’s argument persuasive, what practical implications would it have?…”

Embryo research: destiny is what counts

“…The paper by Savulescu et al is timely and the concepts illuminated deserve further reflection 1. Reproductive tissue which includes sperm, oocytes and embryos are commonly treated differently to other human tissue, even when the reproductive potential of these has no possibility of being realised.…”

Future persons, future attributes and potential persons: commentary on Savulescu and colleagues

“…Savulescu and colleagues propose a distinction between ‘future person embryo research’ (henceforth FPE research) and ‘non-future person embryo research’ (henceforth, NFPE research), which they hold can help decision-makers more efficiently discriminate between higher risk and lower risk embryo research 1. The authors’ proposed distinction does point to an ethically significant difference between different forms of embryo research, which they illustrate in an enlightening manner using a series of detailed case studies.…”