Viewpoint: Political left, right and sprinkling of bioethicists express concern about modifying rules on embryo research

Credit: Shutterstock
Credit: Shutterstock

On May 26, the International Society of Stem Cell Research (ISSCR), a non-governmental  organization of scientists, released newly revised guidelines for research scientists. 

A month later, reactions continue to be published, and for once most of them are critical, from a wide variety of perspectives.

The almost immediate CGS analysis noted several problems, as did other early reactions from the eminent Canadian bioethicist Françoise Baylis, on her own and jointly with South African bioethicist and attorney Sheetal Soni

More pushback… has come from, among others, David Albert Jones, Director of the Anscombe Bioethics Centre at Oxford, who complains about a “shifting goalpost” and stresses that the 14-day rule had survived so long mostly because scientists had been unable to culture a human embryo for more than 13 days.

Jones is a Catholic and believes that any experiments on an embryo represent “a grave injustice and a form of exploitation.” So do other conservatives, including Ross Douthat in the New York Times and John Burger in Aleteia.

Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.

In sum, the ISSCR guidelines are facing criticism from social progressives, from social conservatives, from bioethicists, from theologians, from scientists, and even from bioentrepreneurs.

Read the original post

{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.singularReviewCountLabel }}
{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.pluralReviewCountLabel }}
{{ options.labels.newReviewButton }}
{{ userData.canReview.message }}

Related Articles

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Does glyphosate—the world's most heavily-used herbicide—pose serious harm to humans? Is it carcinogenic? Those issues are of both legal and ...

Most Popular

Screenshot-2026-04-14-at-11.11.06-AM
‘Turbo cancer’ or mRNA cancer cure? Strategies to counter misinformation
Picture1
The Orange Bowl without oranges: Can CRISPR save Florida citrus?
ChatGPT-Image-May-22-2026-10_26_09-AM
Gutting the National Science Board: How the Trump-RFK, Jr. crusade is erasing the separation of science and state
Screenshot 2025-11-12 at 3.28
GLP podcast: Evolutionary biologist debunks the 'sex spectrum'
Screenshot-2026-04-22-at-12.21.32-PM
Viewpoint: Why the retracted Monsanto glyphosate study doesn’t change the science—the world’s most popular herbicide is safe 
ChatGPT-Image-Mar-10-2026-01_39_01-PM
Viewpoint—“Miracle molecule” debunked: Why acemannan supplements don’t work
ChatGPT-Image-May-26-2026-09_19_32-AM
Viewpoint— “A safe space to chat, flirt, and be intimate without sex”: Are new AI companies exploiting vulnerable asexuals?
Screenshot 2026-05-22 at 3.28
Vagus nerve wellness grift: How to build a billion dollar business. Are you listening, Kelly Ripa?
Screenshot 2026-05-26 at 11.16
Colossal Bio grows chicks in 3D-printed artificial eggs. Breakthrough or copycat technology?
ChatGPT-Image-May-1-2026-11_42_59-AM-2
Viewpoint: NAD is the wellness grifters latest evidence-lite longevity fad. At least the mice are impressed.
ChatGPT-Image-Apr-16-2026-02_56_53-PM
Financial incentives, over diagnosis, and weak oversight: Autism claims are driving up Medicare costs
glp menu logo outlined

Get news on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.