HOUSTON – (June 27, 2022) – Two experts from the Baker Institute for Public Policy’s Center for Health and Biosciences at Rice University are available to explain the regulatory landscape of human embryo and embryoid research, especially in light of changes to federal policy after Roe v. Wade was overturned.
Human embryo research takes places in the first 14 days after fertilization -- before the formation of the primitive streak, which would denote the end of implantation in a uterus and the beginning of gastrulation. Embryoids mimic aspects of early embryo development stages without being created through fertilization. They can be lab-created and are often viewed as less ethically contentious in research.
State policies on such research are morally inconsistent, according to a paper by Kirstin Matthews and Daniel Moralí published in the Journal of Law and the Biosciences, which reviewed all applicable federal and state laws. While federal policies focus on what can and cannot be funded, state laws often regulate human embryonic stem cells, abortion, fetal tissue research and reproductive cloning.
Matthews and Moralí found examples of research that is banned in one state but can be publicly funded in another. Of the 29 states with laws impacting human embryo research, only 11 ban it outright and none address embryoids directly — although five states limit aspects of such research.
The authors found a complex regulatory landscape and argue for additional federal guidance to help scientists and the public navigate and understand these areas of research. However, they say that might not be possible.
“As a result of our current decentralized approach to human embryo and embryoid research, we find a highly pluralist approach to regulation which reflects geographic differences in perceptions and opinions about the research,” they wrote. “In addition, these policies are arguably inefficient in terms of scientific and ethical standard development or economic competitiveness. The tensions between emerging biotechnological advances and morality issues will likely increase, especially as embryo and embryoid research expands.”
Federal guidelines for embryo and embryoid research would allow for increased transparency and create more uniformity in the research among scientists, Matthews and Moralí argue. Biomedical research policy has traditionally been a federal responsibility, but is currently left to the states to legislate.
The authors also argue a need to reestablish formal presidential ethics committees similar to those active during the administrations of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama.
“These committees were populated by scientists, ethicists and other scholars who would review and assess controversial topics and offer recommendations to the White House on how to proceed,” they wrote. “They also provided an opportunity for transparent and open discussions with the public on controversial topics. Past issues, including hESCs (human embryonic stem cells), cloning and synthetic biology, were assessed in their time by a presidential committee and today help determine current policies.”