Stem cell-derived embryo models: moral advance or moral obfuscation?

Stem cell-derived embryo models (SCEMs) are model embryos used in scientific research to gain a better understanding of early embryonic development. The way humans develop from a single-cell zygote to a complex multicellular organism remains poorly understood. However, research looking at embryo development is difficult because of restrictions on the use of human embryos in research. Stem cell embryo models could reduce the need for human embryos, allowing us to both understand early development and improve assisted reproductive technologies. There have been several rapid advances in creating SCEMs in recent years. These advances potentially provide a new avenue to study early human development. The benefits of SCEMs are predicated on the claim that they are different from embryos and should, therefore, be exempt from existing regulations that apply to embryos (such as the 14-day rule). SCEMs are proposed as offering a model that can capture the inner workings of the embryo but lack its moral sensitivities. However, the ethical basis for making this distinction has not been clearly explained. In this current controversy, we focus on the ethical justification for treating SCEMs differently to embryos, based on considerations of moral status.

The Donation of Human Biological Material for Brain Organoid Research: The Problems of Consciousness and Consent.

Human brain organoids are three-dimensional masses of tissues derived from human stem cells that partially recapitulate the characteristics of the human brain. They have promising applications in many fields, from basic research to applied medicine. However, ethical concerns have been raised regarding the use of human brain organoids. These concerns primarily relate to the possibility that brain organoids may become conscious in the future. This possibility is associated with uncertainties about whether and in what sense brain organoids could have consciousness and what the moral significance of that would be. These uncertainties raise further concerns regarding consent from stem cell donors who may not be sufficiently informed to provide valid consent to the use of their donated cells in human brain organoid research. Furthermore, the possibility of harm to the brain organoids raises question about the scope of the donor's autonomy in consenting to research involving these entities. Donor consent does not establish the reasonableness of the risk and harms to the organoids, which ethical oversight must ensure by establishing some measures to mitigate them. To address these concerns, we provide three proposals for the consent procedure for human brain organoid research. First, it is vital to obtain project-specific consent rather than broad consent. Second, donors should be assured that appropriate measures will be taken to protect human brain organoids during research. Lastly, these assurances should be fulfilled through the implementation of precautionary measures. These proposals aim to enhance the ethical framework surrounding human brain organoid research.

Navigating equity in global access to genome therapy expanding access to potentially transformative therapies and benefiting those in need requires global policy changes.

In December 2023, the US Food and Drug Administration and the UK Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency granted the first regulatory approval for genome therapy for sickle cell disease. This approval brings hope to those suffering from this debilitating genetic disease. However, several barriers may hinder global patient access, including high treatment costs, obtaining informed consent for minors, inadequate public health infrastructure, and insufficient regulatory oversight. These barriers reflect the structural inequalities inherent in global health governance, where patient access often depends on social and institutional arrangements. This article addresses concerns around informed consent, treatment costs, and patient access, and proposes corresponding policy reforms. We argue that these discussions should be framed within a broader global context that considers social and institutional structures, global research priorities, and a commitment to health equity.