Addressing the ethical issues raised by synthetic human entities with embryo-like features.

John Aach, Jeantine Lunshof, Eswar Iyer, George M Church
Author Information
  1. John Aach: Department of Genetics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States. ORCID
  2. Jeantine Lunshof: Department of Genetics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States. ORCID
  3. Eswar Iyer: Department of Genetics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States.
  4. George M Church: Department of Genetics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States.

Abstract

The "14-day rule" for embryo research stipulates that experiments with intact human embryos must not allow them to develop beyond 14 days or the appearance of the primitive streak. However, recent experiments showing that suitably cultured human pluripotent stem cells can self-organize and recapitulate embryonic features have highlighted difficulties with the 14-day rule and led to calls for its reassessment. Here we argue that these and related experiments raise more foundational issues that cannot be fixed by adjusting the 14-day rule, because the framework underlying the rule cannot adequately describe the ways by which synthetic human entities with embryo-like features (SHEEFs) might develop morally concerning features through altered forms of development. We propose that limits on research with SHEEFs be based as directly as possible on the generation of such features, and recommend that the research and bioethics communities lead a wide-ranging inquiry aimed at mapping out solutions to the ethical problems raised by them.

Keywords

References

  1. New Sci. 1984 Jul 26;103(1414):3-4 [PMID: 11658480]
  2. Mol Syst Biol. 2014 Nov 17;10:760 [PMID: 25403753]
  3. Nat Methods. 2015 Oct;12(10):917-9 [PMID: 26418764]
  4. Nat Biotechnol. 2012 Jul 01;30(7):715-20 [PMID: 22750882]
  5. JAMA. 2005 Aug 24;294(8):947-54 [PMID: 16118385]
  6. Nature. 2016 May 12;533(7603):311-3 [PMID: 27193661]
  7. Nat Cell Biol. 2016 Jun;18(6):700-8 [PMID: 27144686]
  8. Neuroscience. 2016 Oct 15;334:105-118 [PMID: 27506142]
  9. Nat Methods. 2013 May;10(5):403-6 [PMID: 23503053]
  10. Elife. 2014 Jul 17;3: [PMID: 25035423]
  11. Development. 2014 Nov;141(22):4231-42 [PMID: 25371360]
  12. BMC Med Ethics. 2004 Dec 13;5:E9 [PMID: 15596013]
  13. Science. 1998 Nov 6;282(5391):1145-7 [PMID: 9804556]
  14. Reprod Biomed Online. 2008 May;16(5):684-93 [PMID: 18492373]
  15. Science. 2017 Apr 14;356(6334):null [PMID: 28254784]
  16. Sci Eng Ethics. 2017 Apr;23 (2):403-412 [PMID: 27351772]
  17. Cell Stem Cell. 2016 Aug 4;19(2):248-57 [PMID: 27476966]
  18. Nature. 1989 Nov 30;342(6249):461-2 [PMID: 2586616]
  19. Reprod Biomed Online. 2013 Nov;27(5):461-76 [PMID: 24055530]
  20. Reprod Biomed Online. 2010 Dec;21(6):769-75 [PMID: 21051286]
  21. Semin Perinatol. 2007 Oct;31(5):275-82 [PMID: 17905181]
  22. Bioethics. 2001 Oct;15(5-6):382-97 [PMID: 12058765]
  23. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Oct 30;(10):CD001502 [PMID: 24174382]
  24. Science. 2014 Aug 8;345(6197):626-8 [PMID: 25035410]
  25. Nature. 2013 Sep 19;501(7467):373-9 [PMID: 23995685]
  26. Nature. 2016 May 04;533(7602):169-71 [PMID: 27172031]
  27. Science. 2015 Apr 3;348(6230):36-8 [PMID: 25791083]
  28. Birth Defects Res C Embryo Today. 2008 Jun;84(2):164-73 [PMID: 18546339]
  29. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med. 2013 Oct 01;3(10):a013847 [PMID: 24086063]
  30. Cells Tissues Organs. 2014;199(4):221-7 [PMID: 25547645]
  31. Xenotransplantation. 2006 Nov;13(6):501-5 [PMID: 17059574]
  32. Lab Chip. 2012 Jun 21;12(12):2156-64 [PMID: 22555377]
  33. Cell. 2014 Feb 27;156(5):1032-44 [PMID: 24529478]
  34. Nat Med. 2014 Jun;20(6):616-23 [PMID: 24813252]
  35. Sci Rep. 2016 Oct 11;6:34845 [PMID: 27725720]
  36. Bioethics. 2011 Jun;25(5):267-79 [PMID: 20184561]
  37. Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 2004 Mar;14(1):3-38 [PMID: 15250112]
  38. Nat Methods. 2014 Aug;11(8):847-54 [PMID: 24973948]
  39. Stem Cell Reports. 2016 Jun 14;6(6):787-97 [PMID: 27185282]
  40. Stem Cell Rev. 2005 Dec;1(4):309-15 [PMID: 17142873]
  41. Cell. 2007 Nov 30;131(5):861-72 [PMID: 18035408]
  42. Nature. 2016 May 04;533(7602):251-4 [PMID: 27144363]
  43. Am J Bioeth. 2007 May;7(5):27-40 [PMID: 17497502]
  44. Theol Stud. 1975 Jun;36(2):305-24 [PMID: 11663583]
  45. Am J Bioeth. 2013;13(1):19-27 [PMID: 23311835]
  46. Mol Med. 2000 Feb;6(2):88-95 [PMID: 10859025]
  47. Nat Commun. 2013;4:2275 [PMID: 24013352]
  48. Science. 2014 Jul 18;345(6194):1247125 [PMID: 25035496]
  49. Stem Cell Rev. 2005 Dec;1(4):293-300 [PMID: 17142870]
  50. Fertil Steril. 1993 Feb;59(2):339-42 [PMID: 8425628]
  51. Adv Mater. 2014 May 21;26(19):3124-30 [PMID: 24550124]

Grants

  1. P50 HG005550/NHGRI NIH HHS
  2. RM1 HG008525/NHGRI NIH HHS

MeSH Term

Biomedical Research
Cytological Techniques
Embryonic Development
Humans
Time Factors

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0featureshumanruleresearchexperimentsstemdevelop14cells14-dayissuessyntheticentitiesembryo-likeSHEEFsethicalraised"14-dayrule"embryostipulatesintactembryosmustallowbeyonddaysappearanceprimitivestreakHoweverrecentshowingsuitablyculturedpluripotentcanself-organizerecapitulateembryonichighlighteddifficultiesledcallsreassessmentarguerelatedraisefoundationalfixedadjustingframeworkunderlyingadequatelydescribewaysmightmorallyconcerningalteredformsdevelopmentproposelimitsbaseddirectlypossiblegenerationrecommendbioethicscommunitiesleadwide-ranginginquiryaimedmappingsolutionsproblemsthemAddressingdayEmbryocellethicsdevelopmentalbiologytissueengineering

Similar Articles

Cited By