Human Embryo Debate

Jordan Bailey

Critics are outraged by a definition of “human embryo” given in October of 2011 by the European Court of Justice. The ECJ was asked by the German Supreme Court to give such a definition in an effort to clarify the European Union’s directive on the Legal Protection of Biotechnological Inventions established in July of 1998. The goal of the 1998 law was to determine what processes and inventions would be patented, or government protected, in the sensitive realm of genetic research. Specifically, the directive aims to establish the human body at all stages of development not patentable. For years, ambiguous wording in the directive allowed scientists and researchers to defy the true purpose of the regulation and continue with human embryo research, until the German Supreme Court requested a clarification of the document by the ECJ. Despite opposition from scientists and researchers, the ECJ had full rights to establish an official “human embryo” definition, on the grounds that it was a purely scientific definition used solely to clarify a pre-existing law, and was given by the most qualified group in Europe to make such a decision.

The ECJ ruled, “A human embryo…comprises an ovum activated to divide by fertilization or any artificial means. Moreover…any research involving human embryonic stem-cell lines is immoral, because such cell lines are originally derived from fertilized eggs” ("Nature" 291-92). Essentially, the ECJ claimed a human embryo to be any female reproductive cell that has been fertilized, and outlawed any research done on stem cells produced from such fertilized eggs. Many scientists and researchers reject this ruling because they fear it will limit future research possibilities, but a clarification of the term was unquestionably necessary. Scientists and lawmakers have been dancing around the subject for years, leaving enough ambiguity in wording to allow such research to continue despite rules and regulations that appear to state otherwise. A concrete definition of the term does not necessarily limit research; it simply provides a guideline for future laws on the sensitive subject to be based around. Opposers to the ECJ ruling are making unjust inferences about the decision without grounds to do so. Furthermore, the fact that the German Supreme Court asked the ECJ for this definition affirms the fact that it was necessary.

Scientists who disagree with the decision claim that the ECJ is not qualified to give such a definition based on the fact that its members are judicial figures and not scientists with experience in stem cells or patenting, but as the highest court in Europe the ECJ has every right to make this declaration. The members of the ECJ may not be scientists or stem cell experts, but they are trusted to interpret the most difficult laws and have dealt with controversial issues in the past. Such as their 2011 ruling on marketing products with traces of genetically modified organisms. Specifically, the ECJ ruled that a brand of honey containing pollen derived from genetically modified maize was illegal. The decision was controversial because many felt that it would drastically limit production possibilities of food producers. Controversial rulings are a difficult but necessary part of the judiciary process in order to maintain a definite collection of rules and regulations.

Moreover, the definition given by the ECJ was purely scientific. According to Volume 22, No. 4 of Human Reproduction, the ECJ’s definition is spot on biological. The definition given in this 2006 scholarly report states that a human embryo is “a discrete entity that has arisen from either the first mitotic division when fertilization of a human oocyte by a human sperm is complete or
any other process that initiates organized development of a biological entity with a human nuclear genome or altered human nuclear genome that has the potential to develop up to, or beyond, the stage at which the primitive streak appears, 
and has not yet reached 8 weeks of development since the first mitotic division.” Essentially, the article declares a human embryo to be a “thing” with distinct existence produced by the division of a fertilized egg that has been fertilized by either natural or artificial means, and is younger than eight weeks old. This report ignores controversial debates and ethics and gives a purely biological definition of a human embryo, with which the ECJ’s definition is entirely in line.

A basic definition of a human embryo does not limit any potential scientific research; it simply establishes a guideline for rules and regulations of such research to be formed. Scientists and the public have jumped to interpretations of a ruling that simply discusses patent law.











Works Cited

Findlay, J.K., M.L. Gear, P.J. Illingworth, S.M. Junk, G. Kay, A.H. Mackerras, A. Pope, and H.S. Rothenfluh. "Human Embryo: A Biological Definition." Human Reproduction. 22.4 (2006): 905-11. Web. 27 Feb. 2012. <http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/content/22/4/905.full.pdf>.



"Error of Judgement." Nature. 480.7377 (2011): 291-92. Web. 27 Feb. 2012. <http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v480/n7377/full/480291b.html>.