IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/palcom/v9y2022i1d10.1057_s41599-022-01167-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Dutch perspectives on the conceptual and moral qualification of human embryo-like structures: a qualitative study

Author

Listed:
  • Ana M. Pereira Daoud

    (Maastricht University
    University Medical Center Utrecht
    Maastricht University)

  • Wybo J. Dondorp

    (Maastricht University
    Maastricht University
    Maastricht University
    Socrates chair Ethics of Reproductive Genetics endowed by the Dutch Humanist Association)

  • Annelien L. Bredenoord

    (Erasmus University Rotterdam)

  • Guido M. W. R. Wert

    (Maastricht University
    Maastricht University
    Maastricht University)

Abstract

The number of publications on the governance of research with human embryo-like structures (hELS), i.e., 3D aggregates of human (induced) pluripotent stem cells made to model early human development, is growing rapidly. Public involvement is called for in many of these publications, but studies on public perspectives towards this emerging field remain lacking due to its novelty. To reduce the gap in the literature and contribute to the ongoing scholarly debate, we conducted interviews with Dutch lay citizens, health law and health care professionals, and interviewees reasoning from prominent worldviews in the Netherlands. This article reports on these participants’ views about the conceptual and moral qualification of hELS. With regard to the conceptual qualification of hELS, participants believed it should provide a shorthand for their (dis)similarity to human embryos, but differences remained with regard to the features upon which this (dis)similarity should be based. With regard to the moral qualification of hELS, participants believed this should depend on whether or not hELS possessed the features they considered morally relevant, among which those associated with sentience and a potential for continuous human development. Taken together, these findings align well with the arguments and positions traditionally found in related ethical debates and the recently proposed recommendations for the governance of research with hELS specifically. As such, they may also help allay concerns about lay publics not being able to meaningfully participate in debates about the ethical ramifications of (novel) scientific developments.

Suggested Citation

  • Ana M. Pereira Daoud & Wybo J. Dondorp & Annelien L. Bredenoord & Guido M. W. R. Wert, 2022. "Dutch perspectives on the conceptual and moral qualification of human embryo-like structures: a qualitative study," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-10, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:9:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-022-01167-8
    DOI: 10.1057/s41599-022-01167-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41599-022-01167-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41599-022-01167-8?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nicolas Rivron & Martin Pera & Janet Rossant & Alfonso Martinez Arias & Magdalena Zernicka-Goetz & Jianping Fu & Susanne van den Brink & Annelien Bredenoord & Wybo Dondorp & Guido de Wert & Insoo Hyun, 2018. "Debate ethics of embryo models from stem cells," Nature, Nature, vol. 564(7735), pages 183-185, December.
    2. Robin Lovell-Badge, 2021. "Stem-cell guidelines: why it was time for an update," Nature, Nature, vol. 593(7860), pages 479-479, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      More about this item

      Statistics

      Access and download statistics

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:9:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-022-01167-8. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.nature.com/ .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.