We need your help now
Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
By continuing, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
SCIENTISTS HAVE REPORTED that they have grown human embryos in the lab for nearly two weeks, an unprecedented feat that promises advances in assisted reproduction, stem-cell therapies and the basic understanding of how human beings form.
Besides opening a window onto the first steps in the creation of an individual, the findings in parallel studies may help explain early miscarriages and why in vitro fertilisation (IVF) has such a high failure rate.
The research also showed for the first time that newly-forming human embryos can mature beyond a few days outside a mother’s womb, something that was previously thought to be impossible.
But the widely hailed results also set science on a collision course with national laws and ethical guidelines, experts cautioned.
Up to now, a so-called “14-day rule” – which says that human embryos cannot be cultured in the lab for more than two weeks – has never been seriously challenged simply because no one had succeeded in keeping them alive that long.
The Irish slant
Speaking to Morning Ireland on RTÉ Radio today Andrea Mulligan, a lecturer in law and bioethics at Trinity College Dublin, said that there is no concrete international law that Ireland has signed up to when it comes to working with embryos.
“In theory you could do anything you wanted with an embryo here,” she said.
We are in a position of no regulation here in Ireland. We’re caught by general European legislation for the quality and traceability of human cells, but there is no specific regulation of embryos in this country.
Mulligan explained that 14 days is considered the “international ethical rule”, based on something called the primitive streak, or the structural change seen when a human embryo becomes individuated.
“That’s seen as the point at which an embryo reaches a significant moral stage,” she said.
The question now is can you go beyond that and change the rule which has been in place for a long time.
Asked whether any legal framework was likely to be put in place here Mulligan replied: “There may be things going on in the background but there has been no significant legislative change in Ireland since the Commission on Assisted Reproduction reported in 2005.”
Destroyed
In the case of the current research under discussion the scientists involved destroyed the embryos at 13 days to avoid breaching the international limit.
The findings were published in Nature and Nature Cell Biology.
Next to nothing is known about how the small, hollow bundle of cells called a blastocyst – emerging from a fertilised egg – attach to the uterus, allowing an embryo to begin to take shape.
“This portion of human development” – called implantation – “was a complete black box,” said Ali Brivanlou, a professor at The Rockefeller University in New York, and the main architect of the Nature study.
Building on previous work with mice, Brivanlou and colleagues concocted a chemical soup and scaffolding to duplicate this process “in vitro”, or in a petri dish.
“We were able to create a system that properly recapitulates what happens during human implantation,” said Rockefeller scientist and lead author Alessia Deglincerti.
As hoped, the blastocyst grew, beginning to divide into the different types of cells that eventually give rise to a foetus and its placenta.
But unlike earlier experiments, in which growth has rarely continued beyond seven days, the embryos showed an unexpected ability to self-organise.
“Amazingly, at least up to the first 12 days, development occurred normally in our system in the complete absence of maternal input,” Brivanlou said in a statement.
It had long been assumed that this transformation could not persist detached from the mother’s uterus.
Slippery slope
“Up to now, it has been impossible to study implantation in human embryos,” said Magdalena Zernicka-Goetz, a professor at the University of Cambridge and an author for both studies.
This new technique provides us with a unique opportunity to get a deeper understanding of our own development during these crucial stages and helps us understand what happens, for example, during miscarriage.
The breakthrough is also likely to provide a boost to research on the use of embryonic stem cells to treat certain diseases.
“Only with this knowledge, specifically from human cells, can we control their ability to become cell types useful for drug screening or transplantation,” said Gist Croft, also from Rockefeller University.
Scientists not involved in the research hailed the results as a major milestone.
“Both studies clearly demonstrate the incredible intrinsic ability of the embryo to organise itself as it starts to create the body plan – even in the absence of a mother,” said Harry Moore, a professor of reproductive biology at the University of Sheffield in England.
Allan Pacey, also of Sheffield, said they could “revolutionise our understanding of the early events of human embryo development”.
Along with most experts commenting on the findings, Pacey said ethical concerns are likely overblown.
“It will not open the door to couples being able to grow babies in the laboratory – this is not the dawn of a Brave New World scenario,” he said.
But the scientific community and regulators will still be faced with a decision on whether to lift or extend the 14-day rule, which is law in a dozen countries, and accepted practice in five others, including the United States and China.
Most scientists argue for a loosening of the regulations.
“Given the potential benefits of new research in infertility, improving assisted conception methods, there may be a case in the future for reconsidering this,” said Daniel Brison, head of the department of reproductive medicine at the University of Manchester.
But there remains a “slippery slope” problem, commented another expert.
“If we do not use a 14-day rule, what limit will we use?,” asked Henry Greely, director of the Centre for Law and the Biosciences at the Stanford School of Medicine in California.
Twelve weeks or so as in many European abortion laws? Viability – at around 23 weeks – as in US abortion law?
“Human development is a seamless process,” he added. “But ultimately lines need to be drawn.”
Additional reporting Cianan Brennan
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
No need for 9 months of pregnancy, the little fella is growing in the shed with the tomatoes.
Such research does too much good to be called bad. It can potentially treat a range of medical problems and lead to better treatment.
I’m not religious, but I have very mixed feelings about this.
Oh no, quick ring the scientists I’m sure they’ll love to hear your in depth analyisis on the ethics of their work
Ya your right Paul, what was I thinking having an opinion on something. Better leave the scientists to it then, and remember to keep quiet in the future and don’t be asking questions.
I’m guessing you never had the ‘In the last 100 years has science killed or saved more people’ debate… Wait I forgot you’re a wise guy who already knows
As with all scientific research, it comes with a shed load of advantages, and moral and societal problems, it definitely needs to be regulated, but where to draw the line, I do not know.
What’d be so bad about growing babies outside of the body?
Either way, I’m sure this will be controversial.
So it reaches a “significant moral stage” at 14 days but women can legally abort until 24 weeks in the UK? Whatever your beliefs this is ethically wrong. It’s very very dangerous on many levels to go down the road of genetically altering a foetus.
It could be dangerous, but what they find out could also be very beneficial.
This is of course a very big grey area, and I’m not sure where exactly I stand on the matter regarding time limits with these embryos. But this type of research could have profound effects on infertility treatment.
Where in the article does it mention genetically altering a foetus? This is about growing embryos outside of the body, not about altering them.
They want to grow them further to better study the reproductive process, and to better understand stem cells.
The ‘moral’ question arises from this: The longer the embryo develops, the more it’s viability has been proven, so how long is too long to be culturing these when they will ultimately be destroyed?
Why is it ethically wrong?
Testing on humans.
LOL
In reply to Patrick
Lol is not an argument. When do you believe life deserves protection?
Rosie, when does it become unconscionable to end a viable pregnancy? I’d be really interested in your considered opinion on this.
“I’m glad that there seems to be a definitive moral line in the scientific world for giving the embryo the respect that it deserves. The moral line seems to be a lot cloudier in medical and feminist viewpoints.”
Can you give the figures on how many healthy embryos are discarded every year at IVF clinics ? RESPECT – that really made me chuckle ..
An embryo isn’t a foetus until the 8th week, why shouldn’t scientists be able to grow them? The medical benefits/discoveries could potentially be massive.
Answer the question Rosie.
It’s looking like Rosie doesn’t give a shit ..
Patrick looking for a definitive answer for a subjective concept. Hmmmmmm
No Sea – the reason is that Rosie is no-ones bitch..
I’m glad that there seems to be a definitive moral line in the scientific world for giving the embryo the respect that it deserves. The moral line seems to be a lot cloudier in medical and feminist viewpoints.
you just came on here to take a pop at feminists?
How sad!
Feminists and the medical profession. I’ll lump all pro-choicers in also. You don’t seem to want to argue the point though. My point is that scientists who study life and it’s origins and mysteries have agreed that 14 days is the cut off before a foetus gains individuation. I am simply stating that this is a definitive moral milestone. Whenever I ask pro choice people they don’t seem to know the answer to when an abortion becomes morally wrong. It seems to be open to interpretation. They often spout the scientific names of foetus, zygote and parasite to dehumanised the process. Science now says that 14 days is a moral milestone and yet we will be told now that science is wrong. I actually have no problem with limited abortion as long as the life is respected and honoured for what it is. Not compared to a verucca or wart to placate the distaste of the whole process. You may reply to this if you wish or continue hurling from the ditch there playing the man and not the ball.
Also, of this research does need to be taken to the next stage then by all means do it. The sacrifice will be worth the gains. But it is a sacrifice. The life taken should be given the respect it deserves. If you disagree then that is your prerogative but I don’t see the problem in respecting a potential person as such.
I love it when the foetus gets to 14 days as it has grown up so much ..
When do you believe abortions are morally wrong Sea View? At what stage of development?
No one has an answer for that. Scientists now say that the starting point for debate is 14 days. Before that it it basically a bunch of cells. After that there is a moral and ethical dilemma. Why the arbitrary 24 weeks so?
“Arbitrary” if you ignore up to date medical research
Why are you all of a sudden caring about what the scientists have to say about an embryo ..Nothing has changed …You obviously haven’t been paying attention to the “pro-life” scientist (Maria) that we get on here, the one that says that a zygote is a person ..
I have no morals
Medical doesn’t mean moral Socrates. I can medically poison 1000 people. It doesn’t make it right.
I think they should set no limit. take this as far as it can go. very exciting .
They’re delicious in a risotto.
I’m sure that if the scientists involved try the argument “my lab, my choice” it won’t go down well either. As a species one thing we do know is that you can’t uninvent the wheel once it is rolling.
Rockerfeller needs more hearts he’s on his sixth one now……. His coldness and lack of humanity kills them.
if it was your child or your partner in need of an organ.couples going through the misery of repeated unexplained miscarriages.It is not about selfish people .it is about real people being given a chance to live.couples going through the hell of miscarriage. this research can change so many lives for the better. I mean there are women having late term abortions for no other reason then they do not want a baby.
“I mean there are women having late term abortions for no other reason then they do not want a baby.”
Sources please ,Aine ..
see view. so you feel I owe you an explanation personally. sources. I know this because I am a woman .I have known woman who have had abortions for years and I know of a good few cases of late term abortions just because they did not want a baby. now in my opinion that is wrong. but pro choice say their body their choice. I mean do you think you have some sort of authority here. sources. why do you think most abortions happen. they do not want a baby.
I already know why most abortions happen and I also happen to know in what trimester ..
You are talking rubbish,would you agree ?
Aine, I’m not against stem cell research, you have me wrong. The group that are heading it up are trying to do un-natural things with it 6 heart transplant recipient 100 year old trillionaire David Rockerfeller is pushing this because he simply wants eternal life.
There has being a debate for years around stem cell research and its mainly science vs religion. Religion asks why do we have to play God? Well we okay got every time a surgeon saves a life. We play God every time an IVF is carried out.
I’m on the scientific side of it but I want it to be used for good. There is a great potential for it being used for selfish means. Every month an embryo leaves a woman’s Fallopian tube and not fertilised it dies anyhow. Why not put it to good use. Cryogenic freezing for later fertilisation or stem cell research to save lives.
We are at a pivotal point in medical science where the abilities are progressing so much it is scaring people. They can literally carry an embryo all the way to birth in a machine that mimics a womb. The religious people take a shot at this asking where the is the child getting its soul as they believe their soul is based on what they experience in the womb through their mothers feelings.
They have successfully carried out a full head transplant. For many that is scary. But it’s great science. Yet sadly we still can’t beat cancer because the real cure for such problems is being suppressed and illegalised. It’s a matter of personal opinion.
Personally I think it would be silly not to pursue the extent of the capabilities of stem cell research. But I just don’t advocate whom is doing it because they ain’t doing it for good. The Rockerfellers are the elite the 1% they don’t have the rest of the worlds best interests at heart only their selfish wants.
no I am not. but I know this is pointless. so I am not even going to try to get through to you or get dragged in .ye have a mantra . you know the limit and you know what I mean when I say late term.you know I don’t mean 3rd trimester. you are going to start babbling now about its not a baby it’s a parasite. this research might go along way towards showing you exactly the difference between a baby snd a parasite. I am actually pro choice to a point.but I think women like you do more harm then good. ye are as bad as the crowd pushing women through pregnancies that are not viable. also I am posting under my own name. if you are going to call people out maybe show yourself.
Aine, people like sea view believe that all abortions are righteous ones. No one has an abortion for selfish reasons. Moral abortions for all. No point arguing. They don’t care about reason or logic or facts.
I agree with you. I did get it wrong.sorry .
John Donnelly.haha posting and on the phone.
Here is a fact for you Patrick ,92% of abortions are carried out in the first trimester ..
Aine – like a lot of other posters on here I prefer to keep myself anonymous .. The threats that I have gotten aren’t nice, especially the ones that you get from the ‘force birth jihadists ‘.
omg who threatens you.that is insane.
Just go on to the Youth Defence Facebook page,Aine ..
It is infested with some crazy people ,some which are from Ireland, but a lot of them are from America..
that is very scary.
look regardless of a difference of opinion.no one should feel they can not post under their real name.very sorry to hear you are in this position even though I think we prob would see some areas of this very differently. I think it is very wrong that your freedom to post as yourself has been taken from you.
Posting on a phone? Whatever do you mean? I don’t advocate abortions in the third trimester nor the second trimester unless absolutely medically necessary to save the mothers life. I’m pro choice to a certain extent. I don’t believe in just going and asking for an abortion and getting it regardless of the reasons. I feel there should be more red tape between it.
The case has to be compelling and either psychological and medically nesessary. Example rape, incest etc. But I feel that Lm that could have being decided upon in the first trimester. Medical nesesety is different problems can arise any time throughout the pregnancy but I still feel a court order should be sought in order to get the procedure done. Have the circumstances weighed up.
Personally I’m adopted. I was an unwanted baby I was born and then placed in a foster home and eventually adopted. There are so many people out there that want children and if a mother can carry a child to full term and then hand it over to child services it is giving the child a chance of life. Hence why I require mitigating circumstance for the pro choice to be enshrined in the constitution.
no John sorry. I was posting to say sorry . I read it wrong. and I agree with you but my phone rang and it ended up in the wrong place and then I tried to fix it and it happened again. I am just hoping this comes up under your post as a reply
John I am pro choice but I think it has to be early and look other then that circumstances. I agree again when everything you are saying.
look the problem is they are looking at the greater good. so no one can be seen to acknowledge that abortion can be abused. used as a contraceptive. or some women are walking ‘ in with bumps almost far enough along that the baby would live if born.this is not the majority but percentages is a good day to disguise numbers. I understand why people who are fighting for abortain react so badly to this being said .it influences people and then those with valid reasons in need of an abortain feel vilified and it makes it all the more unobtainable. the reality is it is only in recent years that the number of women having later abortains has slowed down and that is because most doctors won’t do them anymore.don’t try to get a point across .there is an agenda and anything in the way has to be stamped out.
Patrick – instead of talking to Aine on here and supporting her arguments, could you not do it whilst you sit beside her, given you are partners. All rather odd and disingenuous.
Nice one ,Tipper!
I respected her views even when it was backed up by nought ..
We actually do not agree on this issue at all, and seriously are ye snooping our pages, I mean if it is this important to know who you are talking to, post under your own name , I mean posting the way you are is trolling,Sea View explained why she posts incognito,
have your say