Why Our Current Embryo Experimentation Laws Are Like a Medical School Toilet

This essay discusses the uncanny similarities between the toilets at the Leeds School of Medicine and our current regulations on embryo experimentation. Topics touched upon include the reasons behind the establishment of the 14-day rule on embryo culture, why there is a call for an extension to 28 days, and why this may be met with opposition. The author concludes that, much like the toilets at the Worsley building, our current legislation may no longer be fit for purpose and that re-opening the conversation about our 14-day rule is necessary in light of shifting scientific and societal opinion.

Freedom of Scientific Research and Embryo Protection Under Italian and European Court of Human Rights’ Jurisprudence. Brief European Legislation Overview

The paper addresses the issues of admissibility of human embryo research and the legal protection to be recognized, in light of the growing importance that scientific research has been gaining in the clinical and biomedical fields of embryonic stem cells for therapeutic purposes. As for human embryo experimentation, particularly on cryopreserved supernumerary embryos, European legislation varies, since the European Court has granted member States a wide margin of appreciation. Some countries, including Italy, have strict legislation protecting embryos from the fertilisation stage, whereas others have taken permissive approaches, allowing experimentation until 14 days after fertilisation. Science, however, has shown that the 14-day limit can be moved. The author finds it necessary to achieve broad international consensus and shared regulations. Lawmakers, however, need to balance respect for the principle of life, represented by the embryo, against scientific needs, in order to devise sound regulations safeguarding both apparently conflicting fundamental values.

Humans and Hybrids

This paper uses the advent of human-animal hybrids, created though somatic cell nuclear transfer experiments in America and Australia, as a tool to deconstruct and challenge the dualistic belief that humans are morally distinct and superior to animals. The view that moral value corresponds to species membership creates a scientific and cultural environment that prohibits or restricts human embryo experimentation whilst permitting the extensive use of animals for research. The dualistic premise therefore motivates the creation of human-animal hybrids for research as a way for scientists to side-step restrictive legislation. Furthermore, ethical frameworks that incorporate the dualistic assumption have been incapable of objectively assessing the moral value of hybrid embryos. This failure indicates the arbitrariness of the moral dichotomy between animals and humans. Moral dualism, based on species membership, should be replaced with a liberal ethical framework based on a consistent standard such as interests.