Search

This commentary outlines challenges with identifying and implementing ethical, legal and societal considerations when initiating large-scale scientific programs and suggests best practices to ensure responsible research. ispartof: EMBO JOURNAL vol:39 issue:19 ispartof: location:England status: published

The ‘one‐way’ expert model of science communication is out of date. The new dialogue model requires from scientists more than just providing expert knowledge to the publics.

Biomedical research often raises ethical questions that are usually addressed ad hoc or in retrospective. Real-time ethical engagement as part of research may be better suited to identify ethical issues.

The “14‐day rule”—broadly construed—is used in science policy and regulation to limit research on human embryos to a maximum period of 14 days after their creation or to the equivalent stage of development that is normally attributed to a 14‐day‐old embryo (Hyun et al , 2016; Nuffield Council on Bioethics, 2017). For several decades, the 14‐day rule has been a shining example of how science policy and regulation can be developed with interdisciplinary consensus and applied across a number of countries to help fulfil an ethical and practical purpose: to facilitate efficient and ethical embryo research. However, advances in embryology and biomedical research have led to suggestions that the 14‐day rule is no longer adequate (Deglincerti et al , 2016; Shahbazi et al , 2016; Hurlbut et al , 2017). Therefore, should the 14‐day rule be extended and, if so, where should we draw a new line for permissible embryo research? Here, we provide scientific, regulatory and ethical arguments that the 14‐day rule should be extended to 28 days (or the developmental equivalent stage of a 28‐day‐old embryo).