Article Text
Abstract
Stem cell-derived embryo models (SCEMs) are model embryos used in scientific research to gain a better understanding of early embryonic development. The way humans develop from a single-cell zygote to a complex multicellular organism remains poorly understood. However, research looking at embryo development is difficult because of restrictions on the use of human embryos in research. Stem cell embryo models could reduce the need for human embryos, allowing us to both understand early development and improve assisted reproductive technologies. There have been several rapid advances in creating SCEMs in recent years. These advances potentially provide a new avenue to study early human development. The benefits of SCEMs are predicated on the claim that they are different from embryos and should, therefore, be exempt from existing regulations that apply to embryos (such as the 14-day rule). SCEMs are proposed as offering a model that can capture the inner workings of the embryo but lack its moral sensitivities. However, the ethical basis for making this distinction has not been clearly explained. In this current controversy, we focus on the ethical justification for treating SCEMs differently to embryos, based on considerations of moral status.
- Embryos and Fetuses
- Embryo Research
- Ethics
Data availability statement
There are no data in this work.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Data availability statement
There are no data in this work.
Footnotes
Contributors JS conceived the project. CG and FL wrote the first draft, and all other authors reviewed and made significant suggestions and edits. CG made significant revisions to the document based on reviewer comments. All authors approved the final manuscript as submitted and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work. CG acts as the guarantor for the manuscript and accepts full responsibility for the work, and controlled the decesion to publish.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests JS is a Partner Investigator on an Australian Research Council grant (LP190100841) which involves industry partnership from Illumina. He does not personally receive any funds from Illumina. JS is a Bioethics Committee consultant for Bayer and an Advisory Panel member for the Hevolution Foundation. FL, CG and TS have indicated they have no conflicts of interest to disclose.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Is a consensus possible on stem cell research? Moral and political obstacles
- Research Ethics, Science Policy, and Four Contexts for the Stem Cell Debate
- Genetic enhancement, post-persons and moral status: a reply to Buchanan
- Embryonic stem cell research is not dehumanising us
- Are those who subscribe to the view that early embryos are persons irrational and inconsistent? A reply to Brock
- Going high and low: on pluralism and neutrality in human embryology policy-making
- Infanticide and moral consistency
- Moral uncertainty and the farming of human-pig chimeras
- Why two arguments from probability fail and one argument from Thomson’s analogy of the violinist succeeds in justifying embryo destruction in some situations
- Human embryonic stem cell research debates: a Confucian argument