Symbolic Issues in Embryo Research

Abstract

The embryo research controversy is a good reminder of the symbolic nature of many bioethical debates. Aside from persons who believe that personhood begins at conception, all parties in the debate agree that the preimplantation embryo is not yet an entity with interests or rights, and therefore can be discarded or used in research in ways that human research subjects cannot. Yet these same parties are also very careful to note that the preimplantation embryo deserves and serious moral consideration as a form of human As the recent report of the NIH's Human Embryo Research Panel shows, to demonstrate this respect they favor restrictions on how embryo research is conducted - for example, prohibiting creating embryos solely for research in most cases and limiting the period and purposes of in vitro research. The troubling question of special for embryos has existed since the late 1970s, when the development of in vitro fertilization first made embryo research feasible. The meaning and scope of this concept remain the central moral problematic in embryo research. If the embryo has no rights or interests, how can it be owed special respect? On the other hand, if the embryo is owed respect, is it not then a holder of rights, including the right not to be the subject of research? What does special mean? Special respect but no rights for embryos makes sense if one views the underlying ethical and policy question as one of demonstrating respect for human life. If the embryo is too rudimentary in development to have interests, it may nevertheless be a potent symbol of human life. Although not yet truly individual and unlikely in any particular case to implant, the embryo is the product of successful fertilization of egg and sperm and might, if placed in the uterus, implant and come to term. How we treat this stage of a developing human thus reflects and even defines the value that we place on human life generally. If this is the case, then controversies over embryo research among persons who reject the strict person-hood-at-conception position are primarily fights over symbolic issues. Because symbolic issues matter so much, it is important to understand their claim for recognition. Disputes over the ethical validity of any embryo research and the ethical validity of creating embryos for research illustrate the role that symbolic conflicts play in this area. Is Embryo Research Ethical? Persons who believe that the fertilized egg and early embryo are persons with rights oppose all embryo research as a violation of the embryo's fundamental rights. This position, however, ignores the fact that research on fetuses, infants, children, and adults, sometimes without consent when harm is minimal, has long been considered ethically acceptable. The most widely held position in the United States and abroad, however, is that the embryo is too rudimentary to have interests or rights, and thus cannot be harmed or wronged when used in research. Rules for research on incompetent subjects in research therefore do not apply. At the same time, embryos should not be treated in all respects like other in vitro human tissue because of their close connection with protective attitudes toward human life. To guard against trivializing the values that embryos symbolize, the NIH panel (like advisory commissions in other countries) required a set of restrictions to mark the embryo's importance. An institutional review board must review all embryo research protocols and find a valid scientific purpose, animal models cannot be used, and the written consent of embryo donors must be obtained. Restrictions about the purpose and substance of the research - for example, no research beyond fourteen days and no intrapecies gestation - also symbolize respect for life as well as concerns for the well-being of resulting offspring. Creating Embryos for Research Some persons who view embryo research generally as ethical see the question of creating embryos solely for research in an entirely different light. …