The University of Southampton

Author: Meixuan Li

Further Reflection on the Question “Shall We Keep, Extend, or Ban Embryo Testing?”

Posted on by

During the stem cell debate workshop, I argued in favour of extending the 14-day embryo rule for the sake of the exercise. However, when asked about my true stance, I realised I didn’t have a clear answer. I felt conflicted because, while I didn’t condemn other researchers using embryos, I would never want to handle them myself. I have always strongly believed in human life – even the potential of human life. The thought of taking away this potential makes me feel very uneasy. This made me question whether I was simply unwilling—or perhaps unable—to extend my personal morals to others. I set out to discover more to help me come to a conclusion…

Why are embryos being used and where do they come from?

First, I strived to find out a little more about where the embryos are sourced and what is being done with them. I learned they are mainly derived from excess in-vitro fertilization (IVF) embryos and are donated for research purposes with informed consent. Strict regulations, such as the 14-day rule, limit research to early developmental stages before formation of the primitive streak. I also learned embryonic stem cells (ESCs) are studied for their potential in regenerative medicine, treating conditions such as Parkinson’s disease, spinal cord injuries, and heart disease.

So should we ban embryo testing?

Based on this information, I cannot say I’d support a complete ban. Excess embryos created for the sake of IVF should not be simply disposed of. This would be wasteful. Furthermore, lifesaving research has been done using embryonic stem cells. How could I condemn the loss of potential life if it means existing life has to suffer?

I then reached out to Dr Salah Elias who works with embryonic stem cells to ask for his opinion from an academic standpoint. While he did not directly share his own beliefs, he directed me to some useful recent publications:

The researchers mentioned in Dr Elias’ email are involved in synthesis of synthetic human embryos. Although they are not truly “synthetic” as they originate from embryonic stem cells cultured in the laboratory, they require a much smaller number of traditional embryos and therefore may be much more ethical as well as more readily available.

So shall we extend the 14-day rule?

Okay, so I’ve ruled out a complete ban, but how has Dr Elias’ papers influenced my opinions?

First, I must mention my research that led me to the He Jiankui Affair (2018) where I was horrified to learn Jiankui edited embryos during IVF using CRISPR-Cas9 technology and implanted them into a mother, resulting in the birth of twins Lulu and Nana.

This brought up the worry that extending the rule sets a precedent for continuous boundary-pushing, potentially leading some scientists to believe they have the right to create and bring a whole child to birth in the name of science. However, upon further reflection I do not think this incident was the result of lax boundaries – the laws were still in place, Jiankui just chose to break them. Furthermore, Jiankui was punished severely – he was sentenced to three years in prison, fined 3 million yuan and banned from working in reproductive medicine, reassuring me those who overstepped these laws would never be praised no matter how “revolutionary” their work proved to be.

While this realisation eased me a little, with the possibility of synthetic human embryos I do not believe it is necessary currently to extend the 14 day rule. By maintaining this rule and finding alternative approaches, we uphold a clear ethical framework that respects the potential of human life while still allowing for valuable research in early development and regenerative medicine. Until there is a compelling and widely accepted reason to extend this limit, I believe it is both responsible and reasonable to continue adhering to this boundary.

Prisoners ‘Donating’ Organs For Sentence Reduction: Should The Punishment Fit The Crime?

Posted on by

In January 2023 two Democratic representatives, Judith Garcia and Carlos
Gonzalez, proposed a bill that would offer prisoners in Massachusetts a new way
to win not less than 60 and not more than 365-day reduction in their sentences by donating their bone marrow or vital organs. The legislators claimed that their proposal would respect the bodily autonomy of prisoners and would address racial disparities by helping to expand the pool of donors.

I must refute this claim. How is this a bill that was passed in TWENTY TWENTY-THREE – a mere two years ago? You’d think politicians would’ve learned by now. Consider the situation in which a prisoner was wrongfully committed and jailed. It is actually estimated that 1 percent of the US prison population, approximately 20,000 people, are falsely convicted. In this case, the punishment does not fit the crime because the crime was never even committed in the first place, and while this is true the bill should have never been passed.

In the instance the crime was committed, it simply doesn’t make sense that the sentence can be modified in anyway. Altering the sentence undermines the idea that it was appropriately determined in the first place which sets a dangerous precedent, suggesting that sentences are flexible rather than fitting the severity of the crime. It also opens the way for future modifications undermining the integrity of the legal system and its ability to deliver justice.

BUT this isn’t even the real problem here. Fundamentally, it does not matter what these prisoners have done – they are still people. Human beings. There will never be real autonomy or true consent in this situation to ask them to give their bodies in exchange for freedom. It’s not a fair trade; it’s a blatant violation of human rights. It’s preying on vulnerable people who have little choice because the alternative – staying locked up for longer – is not really a choice, only the illusion of one.

This punishment will never fit the crime. Furthermore, Garcia and Gonzalez have walked back their proposal and are planning to introduce a version without the promise of a sentence reduction. This bill should never have been passed to allow this change in the first place. Bills passed in future need to focus on real reform—improving rehabilitation, ensuring fair sentencing, and expanding ethical organ donation programs by increasing public awareness and expanding donor registration programs.