A decades-old rule, in which research scientists are forbidden to experiment on human embryos beyond the 14-day mark, is being challenged by a British biologist, who says the old-fashioned, erratic rule, and an unnecessary hindrance to scientific progress.
Extending the 14-day limit to 28 days will make it better for scientists to prevent miscarriages, develop new medical treatments, and promote assisted reproductive technologies, argues Sophia McCully, a biologist from the Department of Global Health and Social Medicine at King’s College London, in peers opinion piece published today in the Journal of Medical Ethics.
The 14-day rule has been around for about 40 years. In the United States, this rule has been enforced by the National Institutes of Health since 1979. In the United Kingdom, the rule is maintained by the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority. The 14-day rule is respected in many other countries and jurisdictions, including Australia and Canada, both formally and informally.
This sandline was chosen because it is only after this stage that the nervous system begins to develop, but, as McCully writes, “opponents of the rule argue that this was only an irregular time limit chosen as a compromise to allow any investigation at a time when opinions were strong. ”Furthermore,“ we can now be confident that it is safe to make a policy change and extend the 14-day rule without fear of a slippery slope of morality and governance, a concern that need not be addressed. ’14-day rule applies,’ she writes.
McCully argues that research conducted between the 15- to 28-day window is crucial, saying that major changes occur with the embryo during this period.
G / O Media may receive a commission
Research on human embryos during this period could lead to many new scientific insights and interventions, she says, including mitigation of birth defects (such as heart disease), improvements in in vitro fertilization, error prevention, and testing of new methods, including mitochondrial substitution (known as “three-parent babies”) and human trait selection (the second to eradicate or infectious genetic diseases new capabilities, such as immunity to communicable diseases).
She says the argument that animal models, including monkey embryos, are not enough to completely replace human embryos infallible. Recent evidence suggests that “even the morphology of the mammalian blastocyst varies considerably among species,” McCully writes, and thus, “although animal models are somewhat useful, after all devices being similar, this diversity shows that there is no place for a human embryo to understand human embryogenesis. ”
The 14-day restriction also seems to be considered irrational the prevailing laws of fertility, where pregnancy can be terminated for much longer than 14 days, she writes.
“From this analysis, and others, there are no substantive ethical reasons for not changing the boundary,” McCully argues. “Embryo’s research is an important task and will help us to find many transformational changes, so it is an effort to expand this real settlement frontier.”
Said James Hughes, a biologist with the Institute for Emerging Ethics and Technologies two weeks is not an important marker for determining the moral significance of embryo and fetus. In the 18th century, the line was “growing faster,” when fetus began to move, ”Hughes explained in an email, and more recently, with Roe v Wade’s decision in the U.S., created this desert moral lines first, second, and the third third. ”
Hughes agreed that scientists should not have to treat embryonic nappies in the same way as other nappies, “but if its moral significance is confirmed by its ability to experience pain or self-awareness, it may be one-month-old embryos will also have tumors or kidneys, ”he said Hughes. Finally, McCully’s piece includes “a very cautious suggestion to take forward research that will benefit all children, without moral danger,”Hughes added it is a “necessary reform.”
Biologist Kerry Bowman from the University of Toronto said the 14-day rule was set not only because of the “primitive streak” – a goal, visible cell climb (as a sign of the nascent central nervous system) – but also because segregation is believed to begin, meaning that after this time, the “embryo” cannot form a twin or higher-an unstoppable multiple order, ”which ensures“ the beginning of an individual, ”he wrote in an email.
“But I would argue the real reason for the 14-the end of the day is to show a spirit of respect in complex and complex societies with a wide range of views on the moral status of the embryo, ”Bowman explained. “The 14-the rule of the day did not satisfy everyone, but it acknowledges and respects many people who have ‘graduate’ views on the moral status of the embryo. ”
A major challenge with the proposed change, he said, by violating international, public, and (often) international status, scientists could lose trust from certain segments of the population and even other countries.
“I believe this change needs publicity and wide public debate,” because pushing this through without public scrutiny could create serious hostility to the field of primacy, ”said Bowman.
In recent years, other experts on an issue similar to the one made in the Journal of Medical Ethics (see here, here, and here), but nevertheless nothing changes in this respect. McCully ‘s paper may begin this much – needed conversation.