"In many ways, you could argue it would be unethical not to do it.... There's very good reasons for doing this research. And people shouldn't be scared about it if there are robust mechanisms of review and oversight... Is viability even an endpoint?... I felt that it would be both difficult and a little pointless to propose any new limit, which would be arbitrary, much like 14 days."
Said Robin Lovell-Badge of the Crick Institute, quoted in "Controversial New Guidelines Would Allow Experiments On More Mature Human Embryos" (NPR) ("For decades, scientists have been prohibited from keeping human embryos alive in their labs for more than 14 days").
Posts
1 comment:
Joe writes:
I am sure that Dr. Lovell-Badge’s full arguments were not included for space reasons. Perhaps a longer NPR article could address questions such as
1) What were the reasons, ethical and otherwise, for the existing 14-day limit? The linked NPR article says “The prohibition was aimed at avoiding a thicket of ethical issues that would be raised by doing experiments on living human embryos as they continue to develop.” To extend the metaphor, what happened to the thicket?
2) If ‘any new limit . . . would be arbitrary’, would Dr. Lovell-Badge accept undefined limits up to and including 270 days? If not, why not?
3) Why do the supporters of current 14-day limit bear the burden of proof that such a limit should be retained?
Post a Comment