The first mouse synthetic embryo
the ability to distinguish the synthetic embryo from the organic one, and to classify them as different. So far, it appears that legislation is taking different routes. Countries such as Australia, for example, have already strictly regulated the use of synthetic embryos, classifying them as regular ones, while the UK and the US have gone in the opposite direction (Savulescu, Gyngell, and Sawai, 2022). Recent research surrounding synthetic embryos also has profound geopolitical consequences. While research on the topic continues and technological advancements are made, the potential for a ‘ spotty ’ approach to regulation of scientific development increases. Western countries currently impose stricter regulations on allowed practices, and will realistically continue to provide prescriptive guidance to research. At the same time – within the western world – certain countries with stronger religious backgrounds will restrict the list of allowed practices compared to jurisdictions such as the UK or the US. On the other hand, countries such as China and Russia are likely to continue on a less regulated background, thus overall creating a very uneven playing field. As the popularity and public recognition of this field of science grows, inter-country competition – which would favour those who establish a less strict legislative framework – could have a significant impact on the ethical aspects of this research. Consequently, to accelerate scientific progress, countries may choose to impose more flexible, less ethically rigorous laws. To negate any of these possibilities, international corporations such as the International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR) have been created to promote international cooperation between countries, while maintaining rigid limitations on stem cell research to ensure that all testing being conducted is ethical. However, the current divergent climate between western countries and the non-western world has already taken a toll on the authority of the ISSRC (which is based in the US). In March 2015 scientists abiding by the ISSRC pleaded for a hold on germline gene therapy stating that ‘ genome editing in human embryos using current technologies could have unpredictable effects on future generations. This makes it dangerous and ethically unacceptable .’ (Lanphier et al., 2015) . Following this warning, a group of researchers in China blatantly disregarded this advice, going on to genetically modify a human embryo for the first time in history (Cyranoski, Reardon, 2015). This nationalist attitude would result in less international cooperation, with countries or geopolitical blocks pursuing and weaponizing their research as opposed to pooling resources; fierce scientific competition comparable to the likes of a space race very well may ensue. It is therefore urgent that a legislative approach to this matter is agreed quickly, one that is inclusive and as commonly adoptable as possible. We are on the brink of a new area of science. One which could help us deepen our understanding of human development, as well as cure many diseases that have stumped scientists for decades. It will be critical to balance cautious and inclusive regulatory guidance with a timely address of the questions that science poses.
78
Made with FlippingBook - PDF hosting