Search

Embryos are actually nothing more than little pieces of tissue which have the potential to eventually develop into a human being. However, the use of embryos for research has been the subject of intense debate between people who view embryos in a religious context and those who regard embryos in terms of their actual physical reality. To resolve the problem, it would be helpful to see it in terms of Aristotelian metaphysics.

Results of recent research on hydatidiform moles and teratomas show that during pregnancy the embryo does not receive any message or information from the mother able to control the mechanisms of development or to produce the type of cellular differentiation necessary for building the tissues of the new human adult. Thus, the biological identity of the new human being does not depend on the sojourn in the uterus; the preimplantation embryo is the same individual of the human species as the adult, into whom the embryo can in principle develop. Key Words: embryo, human species, information capacity, person, rational soul

George Khushf (1997) presented his defenses against the arguments of other thinkers who assert that preimplantation embryo could not be considered a person. In this ethical geography of the debate on embryo research, he also offered his critique of other positions regarding the social status of embryos and fetuses. A point-by-point analysis of his paper is made to prove that his arguments are flawed.

George Khushf (1997) should be commended for his ideas about the dynamics between the ethical and political factors associated with the debate over embryo research. However, he made some flawed assumptions that weakened his arguments. For instance, he mentioned that the idea against the possibility of personhood in embryo research is universally accepted by thinkers who wrote for the Oct 1997 issue of the Journal of Medicine and Philosophy. Although one of these authors argued that the moral status of preembryos is lower than normative personhood, this should not be misconstrued as opposing personhood per se, as Khushf did in his article.

Citing advances in transgenic animal research and setbacks in human trials of somatic cell genetic interventions, some scientists and others want to begin planning for research involving the genetic modification of human embryos. Because this form of genetic modification could affect later-born children and their offspring, the protection of human subjects should be a priority in decisions about whether to proceed with such research. Yet because of gaps in existing federal policies, embryo modification proposals might not receive adequate scientific and ethical scrutiny. This article describes current policy shortcomings and recommends policy actions designed to ensure that the investigational genetic modification of embryos meets accepted standards for research on human subjects.

That the soul of a human person is infused at conception is a metaphysical claim. But given its traditional articulation, it has the empirical consequence that the zygote must have a substantial continuity with the adult person, a continuity which is already determined at conception. This empirical consequence is contradicted by the fact that the zygote may become a hydatidiform mole, or several persons. The metaphysical claim is falsified by the facts.

This paper reviews moral and cultural assessments which led to the definition of brain death and calls for a similar normative consensus regarding the moral recognition and legal protection of embryonal life related to criteria of brain life. This paper differentiates between cortical brain life I, i.e., the first existence of post-mitotic stationary neurons forming the early cortical plate (54th day post conception), and cortical brain life II, i.e., the beginning of cortical neuro-neuronal synapses (after the 70th day p.c.). The latter are preconditional for establishing the communicative network within the cortex and with subcortical structures. The paper conservatively calls for a tentative moral consensus that could recognize brain life I, i.e., the 54th day p.c., as a stage prior to which embryo research generally would be acceptable in accordance with principles similar to those which led to the acceptance of brain death. Other developmental stages such as fertilization, nidation, viability, as well as the 'potentiality' principle are less significant for the moral recognition of early human life.

The US National Institutes of Health's (NIH) director Harold Varmus has been criticized by a congressional subcommittee over the NIH's funding of human embryo research that allegedly contravenes US law. The subcommittee of the House of Representatives Commerce Committee, which supervises management of the NIH, said that the NIH funding received by reproductive biologist Mark Hughes was a lax oversight and showed a lack of sensitivity to the moral and ethical issues involved. Hughes is a specialist in single-cell genetic analysis and has said that the federal ban is not applicable to his work because he does not work directly on embryos.

The phenomenon of twinning in early fetal development has become a popular source for doubt regarding the ascription of moral status to early embryos. In this paper, the possible moral basis for such a line of reasoning is critically analysed with sceptical results. Three different versions of the argument from twinning are considered, all of which are found to rest on confusions between the actual division of embryos involved in twinning and the property of early embryos to be divisible, to be based on highly questionable ethical assumptions, or to imply inconsistent claims regarding the moral importance of potentiality and/ or the moral status of embryos. This is taken to expose a number of related inconsistencies in the moral basis of pro-life positions. In particular, ascribing moral significance to the property of being (in)divisible is found to be incompatible with the claim that human individuals possess unique values which could underpin an absolute moral ban on murder.

The US National Institutes of Health (NIH) has been strongly criticized by those who believe that it is going against legislation that bans federally funded embryo research by drawing up ethical guidelines that scientists would have to adhere to in order to meet congressional criteria for the protection of embryos. The proposed guidelines are based on the requirement that stem cells are only extracted from embryos left over from fertility treatments. Opponents believe that recent research could make it unnecessary to extract stem cells from embryos.

The successful culture of pluripotent stem cells from human embryos has wide medical implications for the treatment of diseases, but scientists have been frustrated by the ban on research using human embryos. However legal experts in the Department of Health and Human Services feel that the ban does not strictly apply to research with embryo stem cells. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is drawing up firm guidelines to take into account the concerns of critics of the research.

On April 23, 1990 the Members of Parliament vote on alternatives of the Human Fertilization and Embryology Bill. One alternative follows the 1984 Warnock Report, which allows regulated research to be done with embryos up to 14 days after conception, while the other alternative would make embryonic research a criminal offense. The lobby for research claims a ban on research with human embryos would prevent developments in the treatment of infertility, contraception and the diagnosis and treatment of inherited diseases. The House of the Lords has recently voted in favor of research by a margin of nearly three to one. However, it is felt that the peers of the House of the Lords are more informed about the nature of the research than the Members of Parliament. The Medical Research Council and the Royal Society have been contacting Members of Parliament explaining the scientific facts and the medical benefits that would come from the research. Such lobbying is unusual for government-funded organizations. There is also opposition to the government's addition of a clause on abortion to the bill, which would lower the upper time limit for abortion from 28 to 24 weeks. It is felt that the debates concerning abortion will be included in the debates about embryo research, even though the discussion on abortion are slated to begin the following day. There is no international consensus on embryo research. In Belgium and the United States, there are no legal restrictions on embryo research, but the United States does not fund the research. Sweden allows research to be done on embryos up to 14 days after conception. In West Germany, a bill banning embryo research is expected to be passed into law in the near future. (Consumer Summary produced by Reliance Medical Information, Inc.)

In November 1989, the British government passed the Embryo Bill, which states that a license is required for all procedures involving in vitro ('test tube') fertilization of human eggs. Any such procedure performed without a license will constitute a criminal offense. The bill also states that records of contributors to sperm banks be kept so that genetic information about individuals conceived by artificial insemination will be available. Another issue before the British parliament is whether researchers should be able to study embryos up to 14 days after conception. The Royal Society believes that research with embryos should continue and is meeting with parliament to voice its opinion. It is the editorial opinion of this journal, Nature, that it is neither necessary nor wise to have a time limitation of 14 days written in the legislation. Legislation with a time limitation will be difficult to change if the time limitation is shown to be too strict. There are other defects in the bill, including the presence of too many members on the authority committee. The committee is to report every other year, which is too infrequent. The database of donors for in vitro fertilization will contain sensitive and potentially damaging information. Although there are penalties for breach of confidentiality, they should be stricter. The current proposal mandates up to two years in prison for people who disclose information and 10 years for breaching the legislation on practice and research. These issues will require careful consideration and it is hoped that they do not get confused with the issue of abortion.

More than 20,000 individuals have been conceived by in vitro fertilization (IVF) techniques since the first in vitro conception in 1978. There are 38 IVF centers licensed in Great Britain, which are regulated by the Voluntary Licensing Authority. More than 50 research projects have been approved, most of which concern increasing the success rate of IVF. The work has led to an increased understanding of infertility and of embryo loss. Other IVF research projects include methods of diagnosing single-gene defects, such as cystic fibrosis, thalassemia, or Duchenne muscular dystrophy, in the artificially fertilized egg when it contains only eight to 16 cells, before it is implanted into the uterine wall. The Human Fertilization and Embryology Bill which is coming before parliament in December 1989 calls for a Statutory Licensing Authority to oversee IVF. The new authority would operate as the old authority does now, but would also have statutory powers. Research cannot be done on a fertilized egg that is older than 14 days. This time limitation was set to allow further research on IVF but not on other aspects of embryology. IVF research is controversial, as it involves the ethical issue concerning when life begins. Other issues surrounding IVF include high costs and fear of genetic manipulation of human eggs. However, the existing authority has stated that none of these manipulation experiments would be considered, hence the regulations, licensing authorities, inspectors and surveillance of IVF research. However, IVF research should not be prohibited. The consequences of ending IVF research are that clinical applications and improvements in success rates would be slowed, which would have an unfortunate effect upon infertile couples and carriers of genetic diseases.