|
||||||||
  |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Do embryos need new protections?
By Jeffrey P. Kahn, Ph.D., M.P.H.
(CNN) -- Off in the distance, there are the growing rumbles of an approaching storm. Not of the meteorological variety, but a storm over increasing restrictions on biomedical research -- both domestic and international -- that may involve human embryos. On the domestic front, the Bush administration recently announced the dissolution of a Clinton-era federal advisory committee that made recommendations on protection of human research subjects. The committee that will replace it, whose membership has not yet been named, has an additional responsibility in its charter. It is directed to consider "unborn human embryos" in the definition of human subjects as it proceeds with its work. Internationally, the United States recently announced it would not support an effort in the United Nations for a global ban on cloning for reproductive purposes, but would instead push for a wider ban on the use of cloning techniques for any purpose, including research, therapy, or reproduction. Do embryos deserve and need the sorts of protections being proposed, and what are the ramifications of these proposed changes in research policies? How did we get here?Restrictions on federal funding for research that harms or destroy human embryos dates to the first Reagan administration. The perspective of subsequent administrations has ranged from vocal support to explicit opposition, but with little change in policy over the intervening 20 years. Such a ban, however, leaves untouched research that takes place with private funding. That has meant that there are no rules related to privately funded embryo research, and that there is little information on what research is actually carried out involving embryos. Including human embryos in research protection policies would bring much of this work into the open, but at the cost of new restrictions. Where will this lead?Limits on research involving human embryos are not new, and their impact can be easily appreciated. Far fewer embryos are used in research than would have been the case if funding from federal sources like the National Institutes of Health were available. But because so little federal research could be conducted on human embryos, there has been limited understanding of human developmental biology. Expanding definitions of "human subjects" to include embryos in the U.S. and banning any use of cloning technologies internationally will continue to slow such basic science. This seems especially ironic at a time that science seems to be on the cusp of breakthrough understandings of how embryonic stem cells go from their nearly unlimited potential to becoming specific types of target cells, and given the information that cells isolated from human embryos may be one of the few sources for studying this process. The field of reproductive medicine, where procedures like in vitro fertilization are used in clinical applications, could also be affected. Expanded definitions of "human subjects" to include embryos would likely mean that new reproductive technologies would go through far greater oversight than is currently the case -- offering patients increased protections, but at greater cost and slower-paced introduction into clinical practice. So the proposed changes would be milestones in research policy, with the significant ramifications of increased oversight along with new impediments for research, and a shift in the way we talk about the status of human embryos in the process. The two announcements by the Bush administration signal a change is at hand, and the question that remains is whether that distant rumble foreshadows a shower or a downpour. Visit the
"Ethics Matters" Archive where you'll find other columns from Jeffrey Kahn on a wide range of bioethics topics.
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
