Event Review: Stembryos – The future of reproduction?

Hosted as part of the Science Museum's 'Lates' programme of after-hours events for adults, 'Stembryos: The Future of Reproduction' was a panel discussion focusing on stem-cell-based embryo models (SCBEMs) and potential ways of governing research involving SCBEMs.

SCBEM research has been developing very fast, especially over the past year (see BioNews 1194, 1195, 1196, 1200 and 1206), with scientists racing to capture snapshots of early human development. With these advances come discussions about regulation and the development of new policy. There seems to be a chasm between the strict regulation of research involving human embryos and the current lack of a dedicated regulatory framework for research involving SCBEMs. As these models become more advanced, there is a case for more dedicated regulation, and this event explored what this might look like.

The panel was chaired by science writer Dr Philip Ball and included Dr Naomi Moris (group leader of the Developmental Models Laboratory at the Francis Crick Institute, London), Julian Hitchcock (of Biolawgy Consulting), Emily Jackson (professor of law at the London School of Economics and Political Science) and Sandy Starr (deputy director of the Progress Educational Trust, London).

The event kicked off with an introductory video about SCBEMs and their potential uses in understanding early development, including in relation to fertility treatment, developmental disorders, pregnancy complications and miscarriage. Following this, Dr Moris gave a brief explanation of what SCBEMs actually are, and the main ways that they differ from embryos.

As a researcher using stem cell models myself, I did wonder whether some key concepts could have had further explanation, for the benefit of the lay audience. For example, the presence of extraembryonic tissue (tissue that forms the placenta and yolk sac) in some SCBEMs was touched on, but it was not really explained how and why only some SCBEMs contain such tissue. As this could be a key characteristic in regulatory decisions, more specific examples of current models and clearer explanation of the range of SCBEMs may have added to understanding of the complexity of deciding on regulations.

As a scientist rather than a lawyer, I at first found it surprising that the term 'embryo' does not have a clear, written legal definition in the UK. Both Hitchcock and Professor Jackson skilfully highlighted that while this might appear confusing, it is deliberately ambiguous to allow flexibility. Professor Jackson stressed that changing laws and regulations is a very slow process, and so a degree of flexibility is key to keeping up with emerging scientific advances, a point that was further emphasised by Starr in a lay-friendly way. Starr also discussed the work of the Governance of Stem-Cell-Based Embryo Models project (in which he, Dr Moris and Hitchcock are currently involved), and how regulation might be developed in future.

A key point that arises, given the absence of a clear legal definition of a human embryo, is how to distinguish between embryos and SCBEMs. Hitchcock laboured the point that to establish definitively whether a human SCBEM could form a fetus, it would need to be transferred to a woman's womb, which would be in violation of UK law.

Starr discussed the idea of a SCBEM's current identity versus its potential future identity, suggesting that new rules could focus on certain key features, although what these features might be is yet to be decided. While this point sometimes seemed to go round in circles, it was the foundation of the discussion.

We need SCBEMs to be like embryos, in order to effectively model development and disease for research. How do we decide if they have crossed the line from being an embryo model to being an actual embryo, in terms of regulation? Does this require expression of specific genes, or presence of specific cell types? What about if a SCBEM does not go through every stage of development? Obviously, this is more complex than can be decided in one short panel discussion. But a clear conclusion, or summary of current discussions, would have been welcome.

Finally, there was a question-and-answer session with the audience. The questions raised focused on more basic concepts, including the current regulation of embryo research and the scale of the use of embryos versus SCBEMs. This hinted that there may have been an assumption of knowledge by the panel that was not necessarily there. While these audience questions were answered, considerable time was then spent on points that had already been discussed. I would have liked Dr Ball to have pushed for more focus on the slightly different angles that had been raised by the audience.

Overall, I found the discussion informative and thought-provoking, although it lacked a conclusion or an indication of what options are being discussed right now.

I think 'Lates' events at the Science Museum, such as this, give a great opportunity to hear from experts – particularly with a balanced panel of science, policy and other expertise – that may otherwise be hard to access.