Avoiding the potentiality trap: thinking about the moral status of synthetic embryos
Research ethics committees must sometimes deliberate about objects that do not fit nicely into any existing category. This is currently the case with the “gastruloid,” which is a self-assembling blob of cells that resembles a human embryo. The resemblance makes it tempting to group it with other members of that kind, and thus to ask whether gastruloids really are embryos. But fitting an ambiguous object into an existing category with well-worn pathways in research ethics, like the embryo, is only a temporary fix. The bigger problem is that we no longer know what an embryo is. We haven’t had a non-absurd definition of ‘embryo’ for several decades and without a well-defined comparison class, asking whether gastruloids belong to the morally relevant class of things we call embryos is to ask a question without an answer. What’s the alternative? A better approach needs to avoid what I’ll refer to as “the potentiality trap” and, instead, rely on the emergence of morally salient facts about gastruloids and other synthetic embryos.
KeywordsEmbryo Biotechnology Potentiality Research ethics Stem cell research Synthetic embryo
Thanks to Gunnar Babcock, Jake Earl, Insoo Hyun, P.D. Magnus and most of all to Matt Mosdell, for helpful discussion and feedback on earlier drafts.
- Baylis, F., and T. Krah. 2009. The trouble with embryos. Science Studies 22: 31–54.Google Scholar
- Damjanov, I., and D. Solter. 1974. Experimental teratoma. In Current topics in pathology. Current topics in pathology (Ergebnisse der Pathologie), vol. 59, ed. E. Grundmann and W.H. Kirsten. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
- Deglincerti, A., G.F. Croft, L.N. Pietila, M. Zernicka-Goetz, E.D. Siggia, and A.H. Brivanlou. 2016. Self-organization of the in vitro attached human embryo. Nature, 533 (7602): 251. Retrieved from, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A463709146/AONE?u=albanyu&sid=AONE&xid=7b8dcdda.
- Fagan, M. 2017. Stem cell lineages: Between cell and organism. Philosophy, Theory, and Practice in Biology 9 (6): 1–23.Google Scholar
- Harris, J. 1985. The value of life: An introduction to medical ethics. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
- Magill, G. and W.B. Neaves. 2009. Ontological and ethical implications of direct nuclear reprogramming. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 19 (1): 23–32. Johns Hopkins University Press. Retrieved March 24, 2018, from Project MUSE database.Google Scholar
- Nuffield Council on Bioethics. 2017. Human embryo culture. London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics.Google Scholar
- Peters Jr., P.G. 2006. The ambiguous meaning of human conception. University of California. Davis Law Review 40: 199.Google Scholar
- Regalado, A. 2017. Artificial human embryos are coming and no one knows how to handle them. MIT Technology Review. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/608173/artificial-human-embryos-are-coming-and-no-one-knows-how-to-handle-them/.
- Shahbazi, M.N., A. Jedrusik, S. Vuoristo, G. Recher, A. Hupalowska, V. Bolton, N.N.M. Fogarty, A. Campbell, L. Devito, D. Ilic, Y. Khalaf, K.K. Niakan, S. Fishel, and M. Zernicka-Goetz. 2016. Self-organisation of the human embryo in the absence of maternal tissues. Nature Cell Biology 18 (6): 700–708. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncb3347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Sherman, M.I., and D. Solter. 1975. Teratomas and differentiation. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
- Tooley, M. 1974. Abortion and Infanticide. In The rights and wrongs of abortion, ed. Marshall Cohen, Thomas Nagel, and Thomas Scanlon. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar