ReviewCurrent stem cell reports2018
How and Why to Replace the 14-Day Rule.
Review in Current stem cell reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Ethical, legal, regulatory, and policy issues concerning embryoids: a systematic review of the literature.Stem cell research & therapy · 2023Pooled it
- When to create embryos or organoids for research.Journal of medical ethics · 2026Article
- Embryo and fetal gene editing: Technical challenges and progress toward clinical applications.Molecular therapy. Methods & clinical development · 2024Review
- 'Ceci n'est pas un embryon?' The ethics of human embryo model research.Nature methods · 2023Article
- [Some present and future ethical dilemmas surrounding advancements in in vitro fertilization.]Salud colectiva · 2023Article
- A framework for the responsible reform of the 14-day rule in human embryo research.Protein & cell · 2022Article
- Revisiting selected ethical aspects of current clinical in vitro fertilization (IVF) practice.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2022Review
- Are we ready for the revision of the 14-day rule? Implications from Chinese legislations guiding human embryo and embryoid research.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2022Review
- SRF STEWART RHIND SCIENCE WRITING ESSAY: Why our current embryo experimentation laws are like a medical school toilet.Reproduction & fertility · 2021Review
- The ethics of human-embryoids model: a call for consistency.Journal of molecular medicine (Berlin, Germany) · 2021Review
- Rethinking Human Embryo Research Policies.The Hastings Center report · 2021Article
- Emerging moral status issues.Monash bioethics review · 2020Review
- Embryo experimentation: is there a case for moving beyond the '14-day rule'.Monash bioethics review · 2020Article
- Human cerebral organoids and consciousness: a double-edged sword.Monash bioethics review · 2020Article
- The moral status of human embryo-like structures: potentiality matters?: The moral status of human synthetic embryos.EMBO reports · 2020Article
- Adapting the 14-day rule for embryo research to encompass evolving technologies.Reproductive biomedicine & society online · 2020Article
- Discarding IVF embryos: reporting on global practices.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2019Article
- Micro-Engineered Models of Development Using Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewThe '14-day rule', which limits research on human embryos to the first 14 days after fertilisation, has long been a pillar of regulation in this contested area. Recently, advances in developmental biology have led to calls to rethink the rule and its application. In this paper, I address the question of whether the 14-day rule should be replaced and, if so, how. RECENT
findingsThe two lines of research that have prompted this question are new techniques enabling culture of embryos at least up to 14 days and patterning experiments with pluripotent cells suggesting that they might form embryo-like structures. I consider each of these in relation to the foundations and function of the rule to examine whether they warrant change. SUMMARY: I argue that the 14-day rule for embryo research should be open to change, but that this possibility must be addressed through early and thorough discussion involving a wide range of publics and other stakeholders.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.