ISSCR: grave omission of age limit for embryo research
By Josephine Johnston, Françoise Baylis, & Henry T. Greely,
Nature
| 06. 22. 2021
We are researchers with differing views on the ethics of stem-cell and embryo research who nonetheless share deep concerns about the latest guidelines from the International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR; see R. Lovell-Badge Nature 593, 479; 2021).
The 2016 ISSCR guidelines ruled out experiments on human embryos beyond 14 days, citing broad international consensus that these lacked “a compelling scientific rationale, raise substantial ethical concerns, and/or are illegal in many jurisdictions” (see go.nature.com/3cqc4bw). The latest guidelines drop this prohibition (see go.nature.com/3gfkkw8) and do not propose any alternative.
At some point, the developing human embryo reaches a stage at which it should not be used for research. There is disagreement about when that happens, but scientists need to acknowledge that it does, and reassure the public that they accept limits. The latest guidelines do not prohibit the development or research use of ex vivo embryos at any stage.
Defining and defending a new limit, and possible constraints within it, will be hard. This was the case for the 14-day cut-off, selected some 40 years...
Related Articles
By Priyanka Runwal, Chemical and Engineering News | 08.05.2024
Saritee Sanodiya, 26, has spent countless days wondering if she’ll ever live a “normal” life. Growing up, Sanodiya often missed school, frequenting the hospital for sudden, life-threatening drops in her hemoglobin levels and excruciating pain in her joints. High fever...
It’s been a busy couple of months in biopolitics, with developments in the US, UK, China, Japan, and implicitly on Mars. Time for a brief roundup.
• • •
Bioethics needs an update
The National Research Act is now 50 years old. It was signed into law on July 12, 1974, as a direct response to publicity about the 1932 “Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male.” The Hastings Bioethics Forum celebrated its anniversary with an...
Image courtesy National Human Genome Research Institute
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is supposed to encourage effective medical advances while also ensuring that patients and research subjects are protected. This dual mandate demands tricky judgment calls that are made more difficult by outside pressures of several kinds, political, judicial, and especially commercial. This April story at Bloomberg examines one deeply troubling pattern of regulatory capture:
Americans Are Paying Billions to Take Drugs That Don’t Work
Companies are increasingly...
By Sarah Kliff and Azeen Ghorayshi, The New York Times | 07.15.2024