Holland's Next Embryo Model
In dialogue about stem cell research with festival visitors
Report
Downloads
What if biomedical researchers could create something in the lab that resembles a human embryo, yet does not originate from an egg and a sperm cell?
Researchers can transform donated human body cells into stem cells in the laboratory and grow these into structures that look like embryos. Using these embryo models, researchers can replicate various stages of embryonic development in the lab. This offers many opportunities for studying the origins of genetic diseases and infertility. In the future, some of these models might even become indistinguishable from a ‘real’ embryo. As a result, embryo models could expand the possibilities for non-natural forms of human reproduction.
The Rathenau Instituut considers it important that perspectives from across society are taken into account in guiding and regulating this development, for instance in the revision of the Dutch Embryo Act. This report aims to contribute to political deliberation and democratic decision-making concerning the use of embryo models for research.
What if biomedical researchers could create something in the lab that resembles a human embryo, even though it does not originate from an egg and sperm cell?
Researchers can turn donated human body cells into stem cells in the lab and grow them into something similar to an embryo. These embryo models allow researchers to mimic different stages of embryonic development in the lab, opening up all kinds of opportunities for research into the development of genetic diseases and infertility. In the future, some of these models may be indistinguishable from the 'real embryo'. Embryo models could therefore expand the potential for non-natural human reproduction.
Purpose of this report
The Rathenau Instituut considers it important that perspectives within society are taken into account in guiding and regulating this development, for example in the revision of the Dutch Embryo Act. This report aims to contribute to political opinion-forming and democratic decision-making on the use of embryo models for research.
In this report, we answer the following research question: 'What do Dutch people think about research with embryo models, based on which values and arguments?' To answer this question, the Rathenau Instituut and NEMO Science Museum engaged in a broad public dialogue under the title Holland's Next Embryo Model (HNEM) in 2024. At five different events, we talked to a total of 613 festival visitors about the use of embryo models.
Alongside this research goal, HNEM also aimed to support the formation of public opinion and spark public discussion about embryo models. We informed people about what research is being performed in the labs, and about the latest scientific findings.
Insights
Much of the academic debate on embryo models concerns finding a balance between scientific progress versus religious or philosophical arguments. Our research shows that, for many people, the debate is broader, and other topics are equally important when it comes to making a judgement on this issue.
Many participants were enthusiastic about the possibilities of research with embryo models. At the same time, participants were aware that scientific progress does not necessarily lead to social advancement. In the reasoning given for this, we have identified three overarching themes: worthiness of protection, naturalness / perfection, and expectations / trust. These themes were a common thread that ran through the dialogues, forming the core arguments on the basis of which participants considered the promises of the research.
Worthiness of protection is about the extent to which participants felt embryos should be treated with respect due to their inherent value. Participants based their assessment on criteria of viability, humanity, and the origins of the embryo model. For instance, a large majority of participants named the ability to feel pain and self-awareness as clear boundaries for embryo research. Only a very small minority did not consider it acceptable under any circumstances to create 'human life' in a lab solely for research purposes. A very small minority was fundamentally and absolutely opposed to all research with embryo models, based on the moral status they attributed to these models, even at the early development stages permitted under current legislation.
The theme of naturalness / perfection concerns the extent to which nature may be modified for our own interests. A large group of participants saw reproductive opportunities for people who are currently unable to have a biological child of their own through existing fertility treatments. A frequently mentioned condition for research with embryo models was that the offspring should not be modified in the pursuit of perfection. Participants also stated that human suffering is, to some extent, part of life.
The expectations/trust theme concerns the forces (science, policy) at play in the development and application of this technology and how this development should be adjusted and regulated. Participants frequently told us that the course of science is unstoppable. Some considered the ability of the public and other parties to participate in decision-making and influence policies to be limited, due to a power imbalance favouring those representing commercial and economic interests. Many participants felt it was important to allow research with embryo models to take place in the Netherlands, but under strict conditions.
Conclusions
Based on the research conducted, we draw the following conclusions:
- Public debate on research with embryo models extends beyond scientific progress versus religious or philosophical arguments.
- Participants' concerns about naturalness and making perfect life are often balanced against the goals of research. For what purposes is it acceptable for us to intervene in nature in this way?
- Most participants believe the research can be carried out responsibly in the Netherlands and consider this important.
Reflections
Meaningful public engagement in scientific and technological developments is an important but challenging task. In the case of HNEM, this involved creating an attractive and practical installation, making science relevant to a wide audience, establishing a dialogue at various festivals, as well as focusing on the quality of the research. Public dialogue does not provide easy answers but rather adds depth and nuance to the debate.
HNEM alone is not enough: incorporating public perspectives into science and policy is an ongoing process. This needs to be done on a long-term rather than a one-off basis to ensure meaningful public engagement in the development of science and technology. The public and those representing public interests should have a say in setting the agenda for research, developing research programmes, decision-making on research funding, assessing research proposals and supervision of projects. It is also necessary to look at how the outcomes of such dialogues, and the values they reveal, can be adequately embedded in innovation policy.