Life begins at....

In light of the recent defeat of the embryos-are-full-persons amendment in Colorado, this article from New Scientist from a few days ago sheds some interesting light on the spectrum of thought on when life (or more specifically moral and/or legal status) begins:

[Whether the legal rights enjoyed by citizens in the state of Colorado should extend to embryos from the point of fertilisation will be decided by its voters on 4 November. A "yes" decision could pave the way for anti-abortion legislation. But an online poll of people with a range of nationalities and religions shows opinion varies widely on the age-old question of when life begins.

The poll was part of a questionnaire compiled by the IVF clinic Reproductive Biology Associates in Atlanta, Georgia, to see how people might view new reproductive technologies.

The Colorado ballot will ask voters whether they think an embryo becomes a person when the sperm and egg fuse. Of the 643 poll respondents, just 22.7 per cent believe this is when life begins. The most popular answer was "when the fetal heartbeat becomes detectable", garnering 23.5 per cent of answers, while "when the embryo attaches to the womb lining" got 15 per cent.

"It demonstrates that this question doesn't have a right or wrong answer," says Jackie Friedman of Reproductive Biology Associates, which will present the survey results at the annual meeting of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine in San Francisco next week.

Unsurprisingly, among Roman Catholics sperm-egg fusion won. In contrast, Jews, agnostics, atheists, Muslims and IVF recipients gave fetal heartbeat the most votes. In North America, 27 per cent chose sperm-egg fusion, 24 per cent heartbeat detection and 18 per cent womb attachment.]

From issue 2680 of New Scientist magazine, 29 October 2008, page 6

The Question of Embryos and Legal Status

What constitutes 'a person' under the law? At first glance, this seems such a simple question; however, the more I think about this, and the more I investigate, I am realizing that there is not a clear answer. There clearly has not been a consensus amongst the legal and scientific communities.

Recently the Los Angeles Times examined the issues surrounding leftover frozen embryos. Many couples in the United States with frozen embryos leftover from fertility treatments are “finding themselves ensnared in a debate about when life begins”. These couples have three choices: discard them, donate them to research or donate them to another couple for potential pregnancy. There are initiatives in several states that seek to protect embryos. One of these initiatives defines a fertilized egg as a person in the state constitution (Colorado). Indiana lawmakers are proposing an allowance for leftover frozen embryos to be adopted for implantation by another couple. New Jersey legislators have proposed allowing unused embryos to become wards of the state, and Georgia and West Virginia are considering legislations that would grant embryos “personhood status”. This is a very slippery slope; for, if the Supreme Court allows these proposals, one would be in a position to say all abortions must stop.

Roe v. Wade is the historic Supreme Court decision overturning a Texas interpretation of abortion law and making abortion legal in the United States. The Roe v. Wade decision held that a woman, with her doctor, could choose abortion in earlier months of pregnancy without restriction based on the right to privacy. At the time of this decision, it was clear that an embryo was not a “person”, or abortion would have been “murder”; thus illegal. In Davis v. Davis the lower court found that “human embryos are not property, and human life begins at conception”. However, the Supreme Court of Tennessee overruled this by saying something quite different, that embryos occupied a special status of “quasi-property”. Most recently, the Oregon Court of Appeals has ordered six frozen embryos be destroyed after ruling they can be treated as personal property in a divorce.

So, in essence, it remains unclear in the scientific world “when life begins”, but in the “legal world” it is quite clear that embryos are not “persons under the law” (yet). In fact, at this time it appears embryos are simply “property”! Did I answer my own question? Embryos are life forms, but not persons?

Medical Breakthrough or Monstrosity?

“Scientists have begun blurring the line between human and animal by producing chimeras—a hybrid creature that's part human, part animal.”
Mary Ann Mott, National Geographic News


According to Reuters UK ( “Factbox: Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill” ), controversial medical research innovations are being debated in Parliament’s House of Commons this week. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill raises several interesting bioethical issues, one of which would allow the creation of human-animal hybrid embryos to be used for medical research.

Interspecies embryos would be created by taking a cell from a patient and inserting it into an enucleated animal ovum. An electric shock would fuse the two cells together allowing the formation of an embryo. Because the genetic material from the animal has been removed, the resulting embryo would be 99.9% human and an excellent model for medical research. The proposed legislation mandates that these embryos must be destroyed before 15 days, and they must not be implanted into the uterus of a woman or another animal.

The advantage of creating mixed-species embryos is that they can be a powerful research tool for developing stem cell models without the use of human eggs. Embryonic stem cells would be taken from the new hybrid embryo and injected into specialized human tissues, giving researchers insight on understanding the progression and possible treatment of medical conditions such as Alzheimer's disease, cystic fibrosis, Parkinson’s disease, diabetes, and other inheritable diseases. Stem cells could also be used to repair human tissue by allowing new tissue that is genetically matched to the individual to be cultivated for damaged body parts without the risk of rejection.

Scientists and researchers are excited about the medical possibilities that may unfold, and supporters of this bill are convinced that these techniques are “an inherently moral endeavor” that could eventually save millions of lives. There is, however, a great deal of public anxiety about the ethics of experimenting across species boundaries. Many critics find it unnatural and morally wrong to combine human and animal genetics. They also question the benefits of hybridization, claiming that there is no evidence that this will help cure diseases and that other research methods are more effective. They find it both misleading to the public and an abomination to nature. “There are other ways to advance medicine besides going into the strange, brave new world of chimeric animals.”

Even scientists are divided on this issue. Although there may seem to be medical advances to be gained from human-animal hybridization, we really need to make sure that these benefits outweigh the possible risks. In the words of William Cheshire, associate professor of neurology at the Mayo Clinic’s Jacksonville, Florida branch,


“We must be cautious not to violate the integrity of humanity or of animal life over which we have a stewardship responsibility. Research projects that create human-animal chimeras risk disturbing fragile ecosystems, endanger health, and affront species integrity.”



[Photo courtesy of goatboyfilms.com/.]

New Gene Research Exciting...and Risky

While news of the research has yet to be published, British scientists announced the creation of human embryos containing DNA from two women and a man. The scientists say the goal of the research is to one day obtain the ability to produce embryos free of genetic disease.

Presented at a recent scientific conference, and funded by the British Muscular Dystrophy Campaign, the researchers employed a process that basically took normal embryos with defective mitochondria in the woman's egg, and replacing it with an egg donated from a second woman with healthy mitochondria. Errors in the mitochondria's genetic code is what results in diseases such as muscular dystrophy, strokes and epilepsy, for example.

Supporters of the research say the procedure offers hope for families facing the heartache of unavoidable inherited disease. Opponents fear genetically modified babies.
Read the details of the research here:

Dame Warnock weighs in again

As some of you may know, the 2007 Amendments to the highly successful HFEA (Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act) of 1990 are now before Parliament for approval. The recent announcement that pluripotent stem cells could be derived from human skin cells (thus obviating the need for embryonic stem cell research) injected some side issues into the House of Lords Debate on the passage of the 2007 Amendments. On November 21, 2007, more than one member of the House of Lords voiced concerns that the 'moral status' of embryos needed to be revisited in light of the new research by Yamanaka and Thomson. See, http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2007-11-19a.704.4 19.

Dame Warnock, chair of the 1984 Warnock Committee of Enquiry into Human Fertilisation and Embryology which spearheaded the 1990 HFEA - perhaps fearing the injection of old arguments into the debate on the 2007 amendments - wrote a powerful essay for the November 29 issue of Nature reminding us that "there was little possibility of moral consensus" about research using live embryos when her committee recommended the 14 day rule to criminalize keeping an embryo alive in the laboratory more than 14 days after fertilization. [During her Committee's deliberations, she noted that] "the Church claimed a right to regulate science in this area, because of its superior knowledge of morality. In sharp contrast, the committee's entitlement to issue moral advice to ministers derived from its having been set up to do so and from its having a wide and non-partisan membership."

"The moral decisions that such committees have to make are essentially matters of public not private morality. We had to consider our own moral or religious scruples alongside what the consequences might be of the decisions for society as a whole. This was the reason we could not allow ourselves to be swayed by arguments derived from a particular religious dogma." "The legislation [we crafted] would govern everyone - believers and atheists - and had to take into account wider considerations such as the relief of suffering ... [Remember] that it is permissive. No one would be compelled to seek a form of infertility treatment or engage in a form of research..."

"It is essential that ignorance and prejudice should not be allowed to dictate the outcome. Everyone should be educated so as to have a broad understanding of science, and an appreciation of its potential for good. Without this, we cannot responsibly erect barriers to scientific advance." "This must be done by weighing up possible goods against possible harms. These harms do not include only the offending of religious sensibilities of a particular group."

Colorado Supreme Court OKs Ballot Initiative to give Personhood to Embryos

[Hat tip to Terry Tomsick for this story]

From the Denver Post:

The Colorado Supreme Court on Tuesday gave the go-ahead to proponents of a ballot initiative seeking to amend the state constitution in 2008 to define personhood as a fertilized egg.

Opponents to the measure, which would lay the foundation to make abortion illegal in the state, challenged the ballot title as misleading to voters.

The court ruled in a 7-0 decision that it is clear and meets the state requirement for a single-subject ballot question.

"Proponents of this initiative have publicly stated that the goal is to make all abortion illegal, but nothing in the language of the initiative or its title even mentions abortion," said Kathryn Wittenben, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado.

"If that's not misleading, I don't know what is," Wittenben said.

The amendment, if approved by voters, would extend constitutional protections from the moment of conception, guaranteeing every fertilized egg the right to life, liberty, equality of justice and due process of law.

The initiative's 20-year-old proponent, Kristi Burton, founder of Colorado for Equal Rights, announced the court's decision Tuesday afternoon to loud applause at the Pro-Life Leaders Summit at the Timbers Hotel in Denver.

"This is a very simple petition. That's all we need," Burton said. "The people of Colorado will support protecting human life at every stage. More than that, we have God. And he is enough."

The rest of the article can be found here.

Story of the Week: Primate Cloning

A few years ago, a Korean scientist defrauded the world and scientific community by claiming to have cloned human embryos -- but this week, researchers in Oregon say that they have cloned the embryos of macaque monkeys to derive embryonic stem cells. Listen to the NPR story here and then take a look at what our colleague Art Caplan had to say about it on MSNBC:

"For quite some time many important and influential people have been freaking out over the prospect of cloning a human being. When Dolly the cloned sheep’s existence was revealed to the world 10 years ago, panic ensued. World leaders — including the president, the pope and numerous prime ministers — condemned Dolly’s creation as a regrettable and dangerous step toward cloning a human being. " Read the rest of the commentary here.

Legal Rights for Embryos?

Attorney and reproductive rights expert Jessica Arons has written a compelling analysis of a bizarre piece of legislation granting individual rights to embryos. According to Arons, "The state of Louisiana has assigned to human embryos a legal identity with rights that can be litigated in court—regardless of whether the embryo is in a Petri dish in a lab or in a womb, so long as rights have attach[ed] to an unborn child. The statutes go on to provide the fertilized ovum with an entitlement to sue or be sued. The implication of this provision is that an embryo should be thought of as a child. But embryos and children are patently not the same and the law should not treat them as such." The article is published in the Center for American Progress’ exciting new science policy journal called Science Progress. You can read the complete article here.

We're Not Monkeying Around (or are we?)

[Cross-posted from blog.bioethics.net]:

After what it calls "a series of detailed deliberative sessions", Britain's Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority gave the go ahead Wednesday for the creation of embryos that would contain both human and animal cells. Such research is banned in Canada and President Bush has called for it to be forbidden in the US*. Here's more from HEFA's statement:

Having looked at all the evidence the Authority has decided that there is no fundamental reason to prevent cytoplasmic hybrid research. However, public opinion is very finely divided with people generally opposed to this research unless it is tightly regulated and it is likely to lead to scientific or medical advancements.

This is not a total green light for cytoplasmic hybrid research, but recognition that this area of research can, with caution and careful scrutiny, be permitted. Individual research teams should be able to undertake research projects involving the creation of cytoplasmic hybrid embryos if they can demonstrate, to the satisfaction of an HFEA licence committee, that their planned research project is both necessary and desirable. They must also meet the overall standards required by the HFEA for any embryo research.

There are already two applications for human animal chimeric embryo research before the regulatory panel. The applications include proposals to inject human DNA into the embryos of cows or rabbits, ultimately in an effort to produce stem cells.

The May 2007 AJOB Neuroscience featured a target article about the proposed human neuron mouse. This summer Hank Greely, one of the target article's authors, and Francoise Baylis, who authored a peer commentary, both appeared on a bioethics.net podcast to talk about the ethical implications of human-animal chimeras.

-Greg Dahlmann

*Or, at least, we think he did. In the State of the Union Address, Mr. Bush used the term "hybrid" which isn't the same thing as a chimera. US Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) has proposed legislation to ban human animal chimeras (the bill actually uses the word) and apparently the President supports this legislation.

Miracle mitochondria or designer babies?

The United Kingdom’s genetics watchdog agency, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), has granted permission to a team of Newcastle University scientists to create a human embryo that will have genetic material from two mothers.
The BBC reports that “The scientists will transfer the pro-nuclei – the components of a human embryo nucleus - made by one man and woman - into an unfertilized egg from another woman.”

The team and its supporters attribute the value of the research to the potential prevention of the maternal passing of certain genetic diseases to their unborn babies. The relevant genetic diseases, which are known as mitochondrial, arise from DNA found outside the nucleus and are inherited separately from DNA in the nucleus. Although the resulting egg would never be allowed to develop into a baby, if it did, the offspring would still resemble their mother and father because the mitochondrial DNA do not dictate things like hair color.
Mitochondria produce most of the energy that people need to grow and live. Organs such as the heart, brain, liver, kidney are particularly dependent on well functioning mitochondria. One unique feature of mitochondria is that they have their own DNA, which is inherited from the mother only. Faulty maternal DNA puts children at risk of developing a mitochondrial disease that can damage the cells of the brain, heart, liver, kidney and skeletal muscles and confine sufferers to a wheelchair. At present there is no known cure.
Some groups have expressed concern regarding the HFEA approval to proceed with the research. The potential scientific breakthroughs seem to evolve at a rate that surpasses accompanying decisions regarding ethics. Pro-life campaigners fear the decision to approve the research represents an unacceptable step towards the creation of "designer babies".
Professor John Burn, from the Department of Clinical Medical Sciences at Newcastle University, claimed such fears and criticisms to be unfounded. Professor Burn said that technically a baby could be born with two mothers - the DNA from the egg donor and the DNA from the mitochondrial donor. The ethical implications may resemble those regarding a surrogate mother donating an egg or carrying the intended parent's child that was conceived through IVF treatment - a process itself that once generated an abundance of controversy.
[thanks Ana Lita]