• Ethics- Medical

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?

In this commentary, we focus in particular on how such an argument might apply in Singapore, one of the jurisdictions with special regulations for embryo (and oocyte) research. We will summarise the way in which approval for oocyte and embryonic research operates in Singapore, and suggest that Savulesc et al’s distinction requires specification to be useful in such contexts. We propose adopting a risk-stratified framework similar to that employed with Institutional Review Boards (IRBs). This requires a wider view of risks than the focus by Savulescu et al on future persons. We then illustrate how such a framework would apply in five scenarios discussed in Savulescu et al.