The United Kingdom has first developed rules for research with human embryo models. Scientists say they are pleased that the country has clarified its position for this fast -moving area.

The voluntary code of conduct, which today was banned, It researchers, embryo models that were made from human stem cells to plant it into the uterus of a living person or another animal. However, there are no fixed time limits how long models can be bred in the laboratory, as some other countries have proposed. Instead, the code demands that projects propose their own limits based on the minimally required time to achieve their scientific goals, and that a surveillance committee is used to check and approve projects.

Research with human embryos is subject to strict rules in most countries, including the United Kingdom, but so far there have been no specific rules in Great Britain that regulate research with embryo models bred in the laboratory. The new code, which was developed by the University of Cambridge, which was developed in London, the charity organization Progress Educational Trust (PET) and a team of researchers, closes a gap in regulation and deals with ethical concerns that have been raised by progress in this area.

"The United Kingdom has a story to quickly establish national rules for research with human embryos and reproductive medicine, often through public consultations," says Misao Fujita, bioethicist at the University of Kyoto in Japan. "The world follows the developments in the United Kingdom."

fast -moving research

The research to Embryo models based on stem cells has exploded in the past five years. The models reconstruct various aspects of early embryonic development and could provide knowledge about infertility and loss of pregnancy. They are attractive for researchers because they are not subject to the same legal and ethical restrictions such as real human embryos and can be bred in large batches.

but with the increasing Advanced The models also have their own Ethical questions that deals with many countries.

The British code helps researchers "with a clear understanding of the process within their jurisdiction," says stem cell and development biologist Amander Clark, President of the International Society for Stem Cell Research (Isscr) in Evanston, Illinois. Last month, the ISSCR announced that it has set up a working group for embryo models that Clark is included and recommendations for the update of the ISSCR Guidelines will do.

reaction of the community

Although the British code is not legally binding, Sandy Starr, deputy director of the PET, said in a press conference that he was "confident" that it was largely accepted by the research community, including donors, publishers and regulatory authorities. Therefore, he expected that "those who do not think they would find it impossible or difficult to publish in a respected magazine would receive financing for their research and also face the blame of their colleagues".

When preparing the guidelines, the team sent an early draft to review more than 50 researchers from all over the world, including Israel, Japan and Australia. Jacob Hanna, a stem cell biologist at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, Israel, who was one of those who checked an early draft, says that the code integrates its comments well and its inclusive approach gives it globally. "The guidelines and recommendations are useful, careful and with a view to the future," he adds.

surveillance committee

The code recommends that the surveillance committee checks suggestions for research with stem cell-based embryo models and that all suggestions are recorded in a register. Projects should be approved if you adhere to a number of research principles, including the consideration of a well -founded scientific goal, the procurement of the appropriate approval of the donors of the starting cells and the clarification of the research advantages.

The code that is updated regularly also requires that researchers state how their models are ended by using methods such as quick freezing or chemical fixation to destroy the functions of the cells.

The bioethicist Søren Holm from the University of Manchester, Great Britain, which is also active in Oslo, says that the great discretion of the surveillance committee could suspect that he prioritates scientific promises - in other words that people could fear that "he does not regulate science, but only". Since he does not commit himself to hard limits in the cultivation period or the occurrence of problematic features such as embryo models with advanced stages of neuronal development, "many people will find the code weak," he says. If members of the committee are regarded as biased for any reason or have the necessary expertise, this could be "an obstacle" for the acceptance of the code, says Holm.

The development biologist Nicolas Rivron from the Institute for Molecular Biotechnology of the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna, which also checked an early draft of the code, agrees that the determination of a time limit for models makes sense in order to "give the public the certainty that research is not promoted unchecked". Agencies in France and the Netherlands have proposed that certain types of embryo models may not be cultivated beyond the equivalent of 28 days after fertilization.