Search

Background: Studying the human peri-implantation period remains hindered by the limited accessibility of the in vivo environment and scarcity of research material. As such, continuing efforts have been directed towards developing embryo-like structures (ELS) from pluripotent stem cells (PSCs) that recapitulate aspects of embryogenesis in vitro. While the creation of such models offers immense potential for studying fundamental processes in both pre- and early post-implantation development, it also proves ethically contentious due to wide-ranging views on the moral and legal reverence due to human embryos. Lack of clarity on how to qualify and regulate research with ELS thus presents a challenge in that it may either limit this new field of research without valid grounds or allow it to develop without policies that reflect justified ethical concerns.Objective and Rationale: The aim of this article is to provide a comprehensive overview of the existing scientific approaches to generate ELS from mouse and human PSCs, as well as discuss future strategies towards innovation in the context of human development. Concurrently, we aim to set the agenda for the ethical and policy issues surrounding research on human ELS.Search Methods: The PubMed database was used to search peer-reviewed articles and reviews using the following terms: 'stem cells', 'pluripotency', 'implantation', 'preimplantation', 'post-implantation', 'blastocyst', 'embryoid bodies', 'synthetic embryos', 'embryo models', 'self-assembly', 'human embryo-like structures', 'artificial embryos' in combination with other keywords related to the subject area. The PubMed and Web of Science databases were also used to systematically search publications on the ethics of ELS and human embryo research by using the aforementioned keywords in combination with 'ethics', 'law', 'regulation' and equivalent terms. All relevant publications until December 2019 were critically evaluated and discussed.Outcomes: In vitro systems provide a promising way forward for uncovering early human development. Current platforms utilize PSCs in both two- and three-dimensional settings to mimic various early developmental stages, including epiblast, trophoblast and amniotic cavity formation, in addition to axis development and gastrulation. Nevertheless, much hinges on the term 'embryo-like'. Extension of traditional embryo frameworks to research with ELS reveals that (i) current embryo definitions require reconsideration, (ii) cellular convertibility challenges the attribution of moral standing on the basis of 'active potentiality' and (iii) meaningful application of embryo protective directives will require rethinking of the 14-day culture limit and moral weight attributed to (non-)viability. Many conceptual and normative (dis)similarities between ELS and embryos thus remain to be thoroughly elucidated.Wider Implications: Modelling embryogenesis holds vast potential for both human developmental biology and understanding various etiologies associated with infertility. To date, ELS have been shown to recapitulate several aspects of peri-implantation development, but critically, cannot develop into a fetus. Yet, concurrent to scientific innovation, considering the extent to which the use of ELS may raise moral concerns typical of human embryo research remains paramount. This will be crucial for harnessing the potential of ELS as a valuable research tool, whilst remaining within a robust moral and legal framework of professionally acceptable practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

STUDY QUESTION What do scientists in the field of preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) and preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) consider to be the future direction of comprehensive embryo testing? SUMMARY ANSWER Although there are many biological and technical limitations, as well as uncertainties regarding the meaning of genetic variation, comprehensive embryo testing will impact the IVF/PGD practice and a timely ethical reflection is needed. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Comprehensive testing using microarrays is currently being introduced in the context of PGD and PGS, and it is to be expected that whole-genome sequencing will also follow. Current ethical and empirical sociological research on embryo testing focuses on PGD as it is practiced now. However, empirical research and systematic reflection regarding the impact of comprehensive techniques for embryo testing is missing. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE AND DURATION In order to understand the potential of this technology and to be able to adequately foresee its implications, we held an expert panel with seven pioneers in PGD. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS We conducted an expert panel in October 2011 with seven PGD pioneers from Belgium, The Netherlands, Germany and the UK. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE Participants expected the use of comprehensive techniques in the context of PGD. However, the introduction of these techniques in embryo testing requires timely ethical reflection as it involves a shift from choosing an embryo without a particular genetic disease (i.e. PGD) or most likely to result in a successful pregnancy (i.e. PGS) to choosing the best embryo based on a much wider set of criteria. Such ethical reflection should take account of current technical and biological limitations and also of current uncertainties with regard to the meaning of genetic variance. However, ethicists should also not be afraid to look into the future. There was a general agreement that embryo testing will be increasingly preceded by comprehensive preconception screening, thus enabling smart combinations of genetic testing. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION The group was composed of seven participants from four Western Europe countries. As willingness to participate in this study may be connected with expectations regarding the pace and direction of future developments, selection bias cannot be excluded. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS The introduction of comprehensive screening techniques in embryo testing calls for further ethical reflection that is grounded in empirical work. Specifically, there is a need for studies querying the opinions of infertile couples undergoing IVF/PGS regarding the desirability of embryo screening beyond aneuploidy. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) This research was supported by the CSG, Centre for Society and Life Sciences (project number: 70.1.074). The authors declare no conflict of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER N/A. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

No consensus exists whether women at increased risk for trisomy 21, 13, and 18 should be offered stand-alone rapid aneuploidy detection (RAD) or karyotyping. In this paper, the ethical implications of a fast, relatively cheap and targeted RAD are examined. The advantages of RAD seem less robust than its proponents suggest. Fast test results only give a short-term psychological benefit. The cost advantage of RAD is apparent, but must be weighed against consequences like missed abnormalities, which are evaluated differently by professionals and pregnant women. Since pre-test information about RAD will have to include telling women about karyotyping as a possible alternative, the advantage of RAD in terms of the quantity of information that needs to be given may also be smaller than suggested. We conclude that none of the supposed arguments in favour of RAD is decisive in itself. Whether the case for RAD may still be regarded as convincing when taking these arguments together seems to depend on one's implicit view of what prenatal screening is about. Are we basically dealing with a test for trisomy 21 and a few conditions more? Or are there good grounds for also testing for the wider range of abnormalities that karyotyping can detect? As professionals and pregnant women may have different views about this, we suggest that the best approach is to offer women a choice between RAD and karyotyping. This approach is most in line with the general aim of prenatal screening: providing opportunities for autonomous reproductive choice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Learning healthcare systems have recently emerged as a strategy to continuously use experiences and outcomes of clinical care for research purposes in precision medicine. Although it is known that learning healthcare transitions in general raise important ethical challenges, the ethical ramifications of such transitions in the specific context of precision medicine have not extensively been discussed. Here, we describe three levers that institutions can pull to advance learning healthcare systems in precision medicine: (1) changing testing of individual variability (such as genes); (2) changing prescription of treatments on the basis of (genomic) test results; and/or (3) changing the handling of data that link variability and treatment to clinical outcomes. Subsequently, we evaluate how patients can be affected if one of these levers are pulled: (1) patients are tested for different or more factors than before the transformation, (2) patients receive different treatments than before the transformation and/or (3) patients' data obtained through clinical care are used, or used more extensively, for research purposes. Based on an analysis of the aforementioned mechanisms and how these potentially affect patients, we analyze why learning healthcare systems in precision medicine need a different ethical approach and discuss crucial points to consider regarding this approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]