Stem Cell Embryo – Notes
Embryos research and stem cell therapies
First stages of human life:
Fertilisation → one cell zygote → starts process of cell division →
Blastocyst stage (after 4-5 days) contains 50-150 cells (size = . )
Inner cell mass contains stem cells.
o Stem cells can become any cells. Can be used to treat regenerative disease by
using stem cells to make specialised tissue.
What is the moral status of the embryo?
A person? (it isn’t legally)
o Maureen Junker-Kenny: Each definition has a practical intent. Once we ascribe
human life and personhood to an entity, we want to protect it. If one wants
maximum protection, one has to use a minimal definition such new genetic unity
created by egg and sperm.
o Textbook: Even if a fertilised egg does implant, some of its cells will divide to
form the placenta and umbilical cord, which tissue discarded at birth, and are
obviously not a ‘person’.
o Roman Catholicism believes a person exists from conception and church tends to
oppose all research on embryos.
o Margaret Foley: Embryologic studies now show that fertilisation (conception) is
itself a process (not a moment) and provide warrant for the opinion that in its
earliest stages the embryo is not sufficiently individualised to bear the moral
weight of personhood.
Protected because of their potential to become a person?
o But sperm and eggs also have the potential to become embryo so logically they
must also have the potential to become a human being? We do not say they
should be accorded the same rights as persons because of their potential.
Peter Singer and Karen Dawson: Lurking in the background of discussions
of the embryos potential is the idea that there is a ‘natural’ course of
events, governed by ‘inherent’ potential of the embryo. This has no
application to IVF embryo which requires human deliberate act.
People find it difficult to explain why embryo in the laboratory has
potential so different from that of egg alone and it is because they cannot
appeal to notion of natural development in protecting the IVF embryo
because of its potential.
o If all embryos must be protected because of this ‘potential’, what about
The morning after pill which interferes with fertilised eggs progress
towards personhood.
IVF (where not every embryo will be implanted)?
Unprotected sex (high levels of natural wastage of fertilised eggs)?
Not true that all embryos have potential to be human beings, many will
never implant.
, o Dan Brock: An entity’s potential is relevant to the moral status it will have if an
when it does become a person but it doesn’t confer the moral status on it when
still an embryo that it will have later when it has become a person.
Compromise position? This is what our law is based on currently.
o Permit research within limits designed to show ‘respect’ for the embryo.
o Baroness Warnock Hansard 5 Dec 2002: Column 1327 – I regret that in the
original report that led up to the 1990 legislation we used words such as “respect
for the embryo”. That seems to me to lead to certain absurdities.
You cannot respectfully pour something down the sink—which is the fate
of the embryo after it has been used for research, or if it is not going to be
used for research or for anything else.
I think what we meant by the rather foolish expression “respect” was that
the early embryo should never be used frivolously for research purposes.
That is perfectly exemplified by the regulations that are brought in and
the licensing provisions that are looked after by the HFEA. It is the non-
frivolity of the research which is conveyed by such expressions as
“respect for” or “protection for” the embryo.”
The idea is you can do research on embryo but not frivolously.
o Compromise position is not concerned to protect individual human embryos,
since these will ultimately be destroyed but is instead directing towards
protecting the symbolic value of early human life.
o John Robertson: Selling human embryos or using them in cosmetic-toxicology
testing seems to be disrespectful of symbolic meaning that many people attach
to embryos because those fulfil no life-affirming or other important purposes
More permissive approach?
o Could permit research until birth?
o Or until sentient (>27 weeks)?
Helga Kuhse and Peter Singer: Embryo until it is sentient cannot be
harmed in a morally relevant way by anything we do. Total lack of
awareness means it never has had any interests at all.
o Or could use abortion time limits (normally 24 weeks)?
o Allow a greater period of time to research on embryo.
o Julian Savulescu with a utilitarian perspective: We are all at risk of death and
serious disability. ES cell technology stands to benefit everyone: embryos,
children or adult. ES cell research is respectful of human dignity in its reverence
for the lives of the living (in the diseases and suffering it can prevent).
A brief history of the regulation of embryo research:
o 1969: First report of successful in vitro fertilisation of oocytes
o 1978: First IVF baby born
o 1982: Warnock Committee appointed
o 1984: Warnock Report published
o 1985, 1986: Unborn Children (Protection) Bills
There were attempts to ban all fertility research on embryos but failed
because of lack of parliamentary time.
Embryos research and stem cell therapies
First stages of human life:
Fertilisation → one cell zygote → starts process of cell division →
Blastocyst stage (after 4-5 days) contains 50-150 cells (size = . )
Inner cell mass contains stem cells.
o Stem cells can become any cells. Can be used to treat regenerative disease by
using stem cells to make specialised tissue.
What is the moral status of the embryo?
A person? (it isn’t legally)
o Maureen Junker-Kenny: Each definition has a practical intent. Once we ascribe
human life and personhood to an entity, we want to protect it. If one wants
maximum protection, one has to use a minimal definition such new genetic unity
created by egg and sperm.
o Textbook: Even if a fertilised egg does implant, some of its cells will divide to
form the placenta and umbilical cord, which tissue discarded at birth, and are
obviously not a ‘person’.
o Roman Catholicism believes a person exists from conception and church tends to
oppose all research on embryos.
o Margaret Foley: Embryologic studies now show that fertilisation (conception) is
itself a process (not a moment) and provide warrant for the opinion that in its
earliest stages the embryo is not sufficiently individualised to bear the moral
weight of personhood.
Protected because of their potential to become a person?
o But sperm and eggs also have the potential to become embryo so logically they
must also have the potential to become a human being? We do not say they
should be accorded the same rights as persons because of their potential.
Peter Singer and Karen Dawson: Lurking in the background of discussions
of the embryos potential is the idea that there is a ‘natural’ course of
events, governed by ‘inherent’ potential of the embryo. This has no
application to IVF embryo which requires human deliberate act.
People find it difficult to explain why embryo in the laboratory has
potential so different from that of egg alone and it is because they cannot
appeal to notion of natural development in protecting the IVF embryo
because of its potential.
o If all embryos must be protected because of this ‘potential’, what about
The morning after pill which interferes with fertilised eggs progress
towards personhood.
IVF (where not every embryo will be implanted)?
Unprotected sex (high levels of natural wastage of fertilised eggs)?
Not true that all embryos have potential to be human beings, many will
never implant.
, o Dan Brock: An entity’s potential is relevant to the moral status it will have if an
when it does become a person but it doesn’t confer the moral status on it when
still an embryo that it will have later when it has become a person.
Compromise position? This is what our law is based on currently.
o Permit research within limits designed to show ‘respect’ for the embryo.
o Baroness Warnock Hansard 5 Dec 2002: Column 1327 – I regret that in the
original report that led up to the 1990 legislation we used words such as “respect
for the embryo”. That seems to me to lead to certain absurdities.
You cannot respectfully pour something down the sink—which is the fate
of the embryo after it has been used for research, or if it is not going to be
used for research or for anything else.
I think what we meant by the rather foolish expression “respect” was that
the early embryo should never be used frivolously for research purposes.
That is perfectly exemplified by the regulations that are brought in and
the licensing provisions that are looked after by the HFEA. It is the non-
frivolity of the research which is conveyed by such expressions as
“respect for” or “protection for” the embryo.”
The idea is you can do research on embryo but not frivolously.
o Compromise position is not concerned to protect individual human embryos,
since these will ultimately be destroyed but is instead directing towards
protecting the symbolic value of early human life.
o John Robertson: Selling human embryos or using them in cosmetic-toxicology
testing seems to be disrespectful of symbolic meaning that many people attach
to embryos because those fulfil no life-affirming or other important purposes
More permissive approach?
o Could permit research until birth?
o Or until sentient (>27 weeks)?
Helga Kuhse and Peter Singer: Embryo until it is sentient cannot be
harmed in a morally relevant way by anything we do. Total lack of
awareness means it never has had any interests at all.
o Or could use abortion time limits (normally 24 weeks)?
o Allow a greater period of time to research on embryo.
o Julian Savulescu with a utilitarian perspective: We are all at risk of death and
serious disability. ES cell technology stands to benefit everyone: embryos,
children or adult. ES cell research is respectful of human dignity in its reverence
for the lives of the living (in the diseases and suffering it can prevent).
A brief history of the regulation of embryo research:
o 1969: First report of successful in vitro fertilisation of oocytes
o 1978: First IVF baby born
o 1982: Warnock Committee appointed
o 1984: Warnock Report published
o 1985, 1986: Unborn Children (Protection) Bills
There were attempts to ban all fertility research on embryos but failed
because of lack of parliamentary time.
