The 14 Day Rule And Human Embryo Research

Since 1998, the volume of research being conducted using human embryonic stem (hES) cells has expanded primarily using private funds because of restrictions on the use of federal funds for such research. Given limited federal involvement, privately funded hES cell research has thus far been carried out under a patchwork of existing regulations, many of which were not designed with this research specifically in mind. In addition, hES cell research touches on many ethical, legal, scientific, and policy issues that are of concern to the public. This report provides guidelines for the conduct of hES cell research to address both ethical and scientific concerns. The guidelines are intended to enhance the integrity of privately funded hES cell research by encouraging responsible practices in the conduct of that research.

This assessment of Britain’s influential 14 day rule governing embryo research explores how and why it became the de facto global standard for research into human fertilisation and embryology, arguing that its influence and stability offers valuable lessons for successful biological translation. One of the most important features of the 14 day rule, the authors claim, is its reliance on sociological as well as ethical, legislative, regulatory and scientific principles. The careful integration of social expectations and perceptions, as well as sociological definitions of the law and morality, into the development of a robust legislative infrastructure of ‘human fertilisation and embryology’, enabled what has come to be known as the Warnock Consensus – a solid and enduring public acceptance that has enabled successive parliamentary approval for controversial areas of scientific research in the UK, such as stem cell research and mitochondrial donation, for over 30 years. These important sociological insights are increasingly relevant to new biotranslational challenges such as human germline gene editing and the use of AI assisted technologies in human reproduction. As the legislation around the 14 day rule begins to be reviewed worldwide, the important lessons we can learn from its global and enduring significance will apply not only to future legislation governing embryo research, but to the future of biological translation more widely. An important volume for those interested in reproductive studies, biogovernance and biological translation, it is suitable for researchers, clinicians and students in medicine, biosciences, sociology, and science and technology studies.

The definitive reference guide to designing scientifically sound and ethically robust medical research, considering legal, ethical and practical issues.

Because of the recent advances in embryo modeling techniques, and at the request of the Office of Science Policy in the Office of the Director at the National Institutes of Health, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, hosted a 1-day public workshop that would explore the state of the science of mammalian embryo model systems. The workshop, which took place on January 17, 2020, featured a combination of presentations, panels, and general discussions, during which panelists and participants offered a broad range of perspectives. Participants considered whether embryo model systems - especially those that use nonhuman primate cells - can be used to predict the function of systems made with human cells. Presentations provided an overview of the current state of the science of in vitro development of human trophoblast. This publication summarizes the presentation and discussion of the workshop.

New developments in reproductive technology have made headlines since the birth of the world's first in vitro fertilization baby in 1978. But is embryo experimentation ethically acceptable? What is the moral status of the early human embryo? And how should a democratic society deal with so controversial an issue, where conflicting views are based on differing religious and philosophical positions? These controversial questions are the subject of this book, which, as a current compendium of ideas and arguments on the subject, makes an original contribution of major importance to this debate. Peter Singer is the author of many books, including Practical Ethics (CUP, 1979), Marx (Hill & Wang, 1980), and Should the Baby Live? (co-authored with Helga Kuhse, Oxford U.P., 1986).

Embryonic stem cell research holds unique promise for developing therapies for currently incurable diseases and conditions, and for important biomedical research. However, the process through which embryonic stem cells are obtained involves the destruction of early human embryos. Katrien Devolder focuses on the tension between the popular view that an embryo should never be deliberately harmed or destroyed, and the view that embryonic stem cell research, because of its enormous promise, must go forward. She provides an in-depth ethical analysis of the major philosophical and political attempts to resolve this tension. One such attempt involves the development of a middle ground position, which accepts only types or aspects of embryonic stem cell research deemed compatible with the view that the embryo has a significant moral status. An example is the position that it can be permissible to derive stem cells from embryos left over from in vitro fertilisation but not from embryos created for research. Others have advocated a technical solution. Several techniques have been proposed for deriving embryonic stem cells, or their functional equivalents, without harming embryos. An example is the induced pluripotent stem cell technique. Through highlighting inconsistencies in the arguments for these positions, Devolder argues that the central tension in the embryonic stem cell debate remains unresolved. This conclusion has important implications for the stem cell debate, as well as for policies inspired by this debate.