Abstract
Study question
What are main themes guiding the attitudes of Dutch professionals and lay citizens with regard to the creation and research use of embryo-like structures?
Summary answer
The attitudes of Dutch citizens indicate feelings of trust and distrust, distinct ‘embryo’ conceptualizations, competing moral values and beliefs, and criteria for adequate regulatory safeguards.
What is known already
Researchers are hopeful that the creation and research use of so-called embryo-like structures (ELS), i.e., stem cell-based models that can mimic (parts of) early (human) embryogenesis, may provide a morally less controversial way of studying the period during which most human etiologies rise while also reducing and replacing the use of animals and/or human embryos in research. Scholars in the humanities and social sciences underline that public engagement and support will be essential in harvesting this presumed moral advantage. Studies on the public endorsement of and attitudes towards synthetic embryology remain nevertheless significantly scarce.
Study design, size, duration
For this qualitative study with a cross-sectional design, data were collected through four semi-structured focus group discussions (N = 33) between August and September 2020.
Participants/materials, setting, methods
The focus group interviews consisted of one pilot interview (n = 5), two interviews with lay citizens (n = 21), and one interview with professionals (n = 7). The pilot participants and lay citizens were invited based on sociodemographic characteristics of the Dutch public. Professionals were selected from the networks of the authors based on their experience and affinity with ethical and legal debates on emerging biotechnologies. The transcriptions were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis.
Main results and the role of chance
From our analysis emerged four themes: (1) trust, distrust and ambivalence in synthetic embryology, mainly due to concerns about scientific compliance with societal norms, also in view of a projected future ability of using ELS for reproductive ends; (2) diversity of ELS-conceptualizations, also in terms of their (non-)distinction from ‘natural’ human embryos; (3) grounds for moral value and moral standing, in which a possible potential to grow into a human being and perceived tinkering with nature were considered key issues of moral concern; and (4) conditions for responsible embryo-like research, with an emphasis on legally binding the use of ELS to non-reproductive research purposes. Interestingly, whereas questions on the developmental potential of ELS were critical for both the attitudes of professionals and those of lay citizens, lay citizens were much more concerned that synthetic embryology could fundamentally change human existence for the worse. In particular, lay citizens worried that synthetic embryology could lead to dystopian futures, for instance, because it stimulates a ‘makeable human existence’ or because of a presumed inability to monitor and control scientific progress. These findings may imply a correlation between fear of research and degrees of (un)familiarity with the governance systems of science.
Limitations, reasons for caution
Qualitative research methods provide rich and in-depth data for an ethical analysis of motivations and intuitions, but do not allow generalizations of the findings to broader publics.
Wider implications of the findings
The results may provide a useful starting point for further discussion and analysis of adequate regulatory parameters for the creation and research use of ELS. The findings also show that societal dialogue and public consultation can play a significant role in addressing concerns about emerging (bio)technologies.
Trial registration number
not applicable
Managing individuality: myths versus art
