When "personhood" begins in the embryo: avoiding a syllabus of errors

"When does human life begin?" teaching human embryology in the context of the American abortion debate

The Dobbs decision of the United States Supreme Court and the actions of several state legislatures have made it risky, if not outright dangerous, to teach factual material concerning human embryology. At some state universities, for instance, if a professor's lecture is felt to teach or discuss abortion (as it might when teaching about tubal pregnancies, hydatidiform moles, or eneuploidy), that instructor risks imprisonment for up to 14 years (Gyori, 2023). Some states' new censorship rules have thus caused professors to drop modules on abortion from numerous science and humanities courses. In most states, instructors can still teach about human embryonic development and not risk putting their careers or livelihoods in jeopardy. However, even in many of these institutions, students can bring a professor to a disciplinary hearing by claiming that the instructor failed to provide ample trigger warnings on such issues. This essay attempts to provide some strategies wherein human embryology and the ethical issues surrounding it might be taught and students may be given resources to counter unscientific falsehoods about fertilization and human development. This essay provides evidence for teaching the following propositions. Mis-information about human biology and medicine is rampant on the internet, and there are skills that can be taught to students that will help them determine which sites should trusted. This is a skill that needs to be taught as part of science courses.

CRISPR-Cas and Its Wide-Ranging Applications: From Human Genome Editing to Environmental Implications, Technical Limitations, Hazards and Bioethical Issues

The CRISPR-Cas system is a powerful tool for in vivo editing the genome of most organisms, including man. During the years this technique has been applied in several fields, such as agriculture for crop upgrade and breeding including the creation of allergy-free foods, for eradicating pests, for the improvement of animal breeds, in the industry of bio-fuels and it can even be used as a basis for a cell-based recording apparatus. Possible applications in human health include the making of new medicines through the creation of genetically modified organisms, the treatment of viral infections, the control of pathogens, applications in clinical diagnostics and the cure of human genetic diseases, either caused by somatic (e.g., cancer) or inherited (mendelian disorders) mutations. One of the most divisive, possible uses of this system is the modification of human embryos, for the purpose of preventing or curing a human being before birth. However, the technology in this field is evolving faster than regulations and several concerns are raised by its enormous yet controversial potential. In this scenario, appropriate laws need to be issued and ethical guidelines must be developed, in order to properly assess advantages as well as risks of this approach. In this review, we summarize the potential of these genome editing techniques and their applications in human embryo treatment. We will analyze CRISPR-Cas limitations and the possible genome damage caused in the treated embryo. Finally, we will discuss how all this impacts the law, ethics and common sense.

We Are All Developmental Biologists

Humans have sought to understand the embryo for millennia. Paradoxically, even as technical and intellectual innovations bring us ever closer to a transformative understanding of developmental biology, our discipline faces an "image problem." We should face this problem by acknowledging that developmental biology is fundamental to the human experience.

Stillbirth memento photography

Research into stillbirth memento photography shows the practice to be welcomed by the bereaved. The visual attributes and content of stillbirth memento photographs are yet to be rigorously analysed however, representing a significant gap in current understanding. This study seeks to address this. 51 professionally produced stillbirth memento photographs have been sampled, anonymised and analysed. Using a content analysis methodology, imagery was characterised by aesthetic and semantic properties. The results were then cross-referenced against existing stillbirth scholarship, data from an interview study with people who had experienced pregnancy loss, and against image theories. The content analysis identified four distinctive image tropes in the sample: images of mother, father and baby, with the baby being held and the parents touching; macro photography of the baby; portrait photographs of babies lying alone with little or no physical trauma evident; and images of a parent, usually the mother, cradling the baby. The analysis also identified specific attributes, present across the sample, that appeared significant and distinctive of stillbirth memento photography. These were: (1) stylistic attributes, (2) acknowledgement and validation, (3) identity construction, (4) ambiguity and (5) embodiment.

Addressing the ethical issues raised by synthetic human entities with embryo-like features

The "14-day rule" for embryo research stipulates that experiments with intact human embryos must not allow them to develop beyond 14 days or the appearance of the primitive streak. However, recent experiments showing that suitably cultured human pluripotent stem cells can self-organize and recapitulate embryonic features have highlighted difficulties with the 14-day rule and led to calls for its reassessment. Here we argue that these and related experiments raise more foundational issues that cannot be fixed by adjusting the 14-day rule, because the framework underlying the rule cannot adequately describe the ways by which synthetic human entities with embryo-like features (SHEEFs) might develop morally concerning features through altered forms of development. We propose that limits on research with SHEEFs be based as directly as possible on the generation of such features, and recommend that the research and bioethics communities lead a wide-ranging inquiry aimed at mapping out solutions to the ethical problems raised by them.