A moral debate: creating embryos for research

What does creating embryos for research entail?

Creating embryos for research involves deliberately bringing human embryos into existence in order to study the very earliest stages of human development. These embryos are created outside the human body and are never intended to result in a pregnancy. According to Buijsen, the purpose is clear: “Creating embryos for scientific research aims to understand what happens during the first cell divisions after fertilisation.” The knowledge gained can be applied in reproductive medicine, as well as in the treatment and prevention of hereditary diseases.

What does the law currently allow?

The current Embryo Act permits research involving embryos, but only so-called surplus embryos: embryos remaining after an IVF treatment. Such research may take place only with the consent of the donors involved and after approval by the Central Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (CCMO). The deliberate creation of embryos for research purposes is currently prohibited. When the Embryo Act was introduced, this ban was intended to be temporary, but it has never been lifted. The private member’s bill seeks to abolish this ban without altering the broader protective framework of the Act. For research embryos, the existing limit would still apply, which is that embryos may not be developed outside the body for more than fourteen days. “This time limit is regarded as a compromise between the interests of scientific research on the one hand and respect for (incipient) human life on the other,” Buijsen explains. “Internationally, this is seen as the point at which an embryo’s claim to protection begins.”

Little at stake legally

Although the debate is often framed in legal terms, Buijsen sees little justification for this. “From a legal perspective, the relevant question is compatibility with higher law,” he says. “However, higher law, as laid down in human rights treaties to which the Netherlands is a party, provides no decisive arguments either for or against lifting the ban.” Human rights treaties afford states a wide margin of appreciation in this area. Both maintaining and abolishing the ban fall within these legal parameters. From a legal standpoint, therefore, little is at stake.

Why, then, is the debate so heated?

The discussion surrounding the creation of embryos for research is primarily a moral issue. Some opponents regard an embryo from the moment of conception as fully-fledged human life deserving of complete protection. Others consider it morally significant that surplus embryos were initially intended for pregnancy, whereas research embryos are created from the outset solely as research material. Buijsen questions these distinctions and points out that public outrage often rests on an incomplete understanding of the current legal framework. “Many people are unaware that scientific research using surplus embryos is already permitted under the existing Embryo Act,” he notes. “Those embryos are destroyed as well. Why, then, should creating embryos for the same purpose be prohibited?”

Medical significance

Abolishing the ban could have tangible consequences for medical research. Buijsen expects research into mitochondrial disorders, in particular, to benefit in the short term from the legislative change. These are serious, often progressive metabolic diseases affecting approximately one in five thousand live births. In addition, creating embryos for research may contribute to safer and more effective research in reproductive medicine. Because research into the very earliest stages of development is currently not permitted in the Netherlands, researchers are primarily reliant on knowledge and applications developed abroad.

Room for disagreement

Buijsen doubts whether policy in this field can ever do justice to all philosophical and religious convictions. “No,” he says, “but well-functioning liberal democracies are capable of dealing with such differences.” In this context, he refers to the concept of public reason. “This means that political decisions (laws and policies) must be justifiable to all members of society, in the sense that they are based on reasons that any reasonable person could accept.”

In the meantime, the House of Representatives has approved the private member’s bill lifting the ban on creating embryos for research. This marks a significant political milestone in a debate that had been stalled for many years. According to Buijsen, the adoption of the bill does not mean that the moral questions have disappeared. He does, however, expect public resistance to diminish in practice once the medical benefits become apparent. “If lifting the ban leads to visible progress in reproductive medicine and in the treatment of hereditary diseases, objections to this legislative change are likely to become less pronounced,” Buijsen argues. The bill will now be considered by the Senate, where further deliberation will take place.