On 5 May, King's College Cambridge saw an international gathering of scientists and academics from a range of disciplines (including biology, history, sociology, bioethics, anthropology, and more); clinicians from fertility centres; representatives from assisted reproductive technology (ART) patient support groups, public pressure groups and policy organisations such as the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA); journalists and media analysts. This diverse group of delegates came together to discuss the contemporary social roles of the human embryo in the interdisciplinary forum created by the 'Talking Embryos' conference. This commentary explores the value of promoting such interdisciplinary conversations, and revisits some of the highlights of an exciting, engaging and thought-provoking day.
We start with the assertion that one's vision of the embryo, and thus contributions to debates regarding embryos, is filtered through the disciplinary lens one is using. Given the undeniable complexity and uncertainty surrounding such debates, it would be easy to overlook certain concerns, arguments or issues simply due to blind spots in one's academic worldview. Bringing together a diverse collection of disciplinary lenses to foster discussion in a single event thus allows a more complete, multi-dimensional perspective to emerge. However, if we are to avoid the potential pitfalls of interdisciplinarity, of simply blurring our visions to achieve bland common denominators, then the start of any inter-disciplinary conversation must necessarily address questions regarding what each disciplinary filter can usefully add and reveal. It is after this that we begin to understand and share in each other's perspectives to create a more holistic portrait. During the 'Talking Embryos' conference, we began such a process.
The first session, 'Defining the Embryo', opened with an historical analysis of how human embryos became such prominent objects and subjects of biomedicine today. Tracing the visualizations of the human embryo from the wax models of the Ziegler studio to the iconic images of Lennart Nilsson, science historian Nick Hopwood demonstrated both transformations and continuities in the way we've looked at them. Then, concentrating on the contemporary context, public scientists Martin Johnson and Anne McLaren, who have both been highly active in science policy deliberations, brought their already two-tiered identity as scientists and policy advisors to bear on the question of defining the problematic embryo, and provided situational examples of how such definitions have been constructed, argued and accepted or rejected.
In the second session, 'Connecting Embryos', sociologist Erica Haimes and anthropologist Sarah Franklin traced the ties that entangle embryos in social relationships - between patients and donors, scientists and researchers, clinics and laboratories. Discussing their respective studies of embryo donation, they drew our attention to the biosocial complexity of the 'national embryo supply' in the UK, as well as to the importance of incorporating patient and lay perspectives in such debates.
The third and final session, 'Representing Embryos', saw professor of media communications Jenny Kitzinger illustrate the ways the embryo has been envisaged in the press and how stem cell research has been framed over the years. She was able to highlight the threads running through the press content, as well as the implications of this content for the quality of public discourse on this issue. In response, Tim Radford, retired Science Editor of the Guardian, explicated the symbiotic relationship of science journalists and scientists in hyping the potential of embryonic stem cell research and offered us a behind-the-scenes guide of how the British press saw it. Bioethicist John Harris gave the last presentation of the day, entitled 'What the embryos would say if anyone bothered to ask them!', and made his case in favour of embryo research based on the principle of optimizing utility for the embryos themselves.
Throughout the day, lively debates spilled from session discussions to coffee breaks, and from these discussions grew informed, productive exchanges. Did we reach a general consensus? Did we come up with ultimate answers? Of course not, but we certainly asked some good questions. What is an embryo and what is it not? Does it matter if we can not come up with a durable definition? How can we define the moral status of the embryo? Who speaks on the embryos' behalf and how? What drives embryo donation? What are public attitudes to embryo research? It seems that these need not be hypothetical questions when we emerge from our disciplinary silos to approach such issues through open conversation. Interdisciplinarity of the kind on display at 'Talking Embryos' can not only push the boundaries in our disciplinary understandings, but it can also highlight additional dimensions of emerging scientific, legal and ethical dilemmas. We see great value in such interdisciplinary deliberations, and hope that one day they can become the prerequisite for bioethical decisions and policy recommendations, in the quest for enlightened debate and multi-disciplinary synthesis.
A full conference report for this conference has been posted on the BioNews website.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.