ArticleThe Hastings Center report2021
Rethinking Human Embryo Research Policies.
Article in The Hastings Center report, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 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
- The modeling of human implantation and early placentation: achievements and perspectives.Human reproduction update · 2025Review
- Transparency in controversial research: A review of human embryo research publication ethical disclosure statements.Stem cell reports · 2024Review
- Technical challenges of studying early human development.Development (Cambridge, England) · 2023Article
- Critical considerations for public engagement in stem cell-related research.Stem cell reports · 2023Article
- Biophysical models of early mammalian embryogenesis.Stem cell reports · 2023Review
- Review
- ISSCR Guidelines for Stem Cell Research and Clinical Translation: The 2021 update.Stem cell reports · 2021Review
- Rethinking Human Embryo Research Policies.The Hastings Center report · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
It now seems technically feasible to culture human embryos beyond the "fourteen-day limit," which has the potential to increase scientific understanding of human development and perhaps improve infertility treatments. The fourteen-day limit was adopted as a compromise but subsequently has been considered an ethical line. Does it remain relevant in light of technological advances permitting embryo maturation beyond it? Should it be changed and, if so, how and why? What justifications would be necessary to expand the limit, particularly given that doing so would violate some people's moral commitments regarding human embryos? Robust stakeholder engagement preceded adoption of the fourteen-day limit and should arguably be part of efforts to reassess it. Such engagement could also consider the need for enhanced oversight of human embryo research. In the meantime, developing and implementing reliable oversight systems should help foster high-quality research and public confidence in it.
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.