Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Human embryos and eggs: from long-term storage to biobanking

  • Biobanking Eggs and Embryos for Research
  • Published:
Monash Bioethics Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Genetic relatedness poses significant challenges to traditional practices of medical ethics as concerns the biobanking of human biological samples. In this paper, we first outline the ethical challenges to informed consent and confidentiality as these apply to human biobanks, irrespective of the type of tissue being stored. We argue that the shared nature of genetic information has clear implications for informed consent, and the identifying nature of biological samples and information has clear implications for promises of confidentiality. Next, with regard to the special case of biobanking human embryos and eggs, we consider issues arising from: first, the type of tissues being stored; second, the use to which these tissues are put; and third, how this plays out given the shared and identifying nature of these tissues. Specifically, we examine the differences between human bodily tissues and human reproductive tissues focusing on the assumed potential of the reproductive tissues and on the possible greater emotional attachment to these tissues because of their real and imagined kinship. For some donors there may be a sense of family connection with embryos and eggs they once thought of as ‘children-in-waiting’. Finally, we conclude by considering the implications for ethical practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In 2003, Hoffman and colleagues estimated there were approximately 400,000 embryos in storage in the United States (1068). That same year, Baylis and colleagues estimated the Canadian total at 15,615 (2003, p. 1026). The most recent estimate for the United States is 1.4 million human embryos in storage (see, Lomax and Trounson 2013). While this estimate is flawed (see Snow et al. 2015), there is no doubt that the total is likely well over a million. There is no more recent estimate for Canada.

  2. The European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology reports an average of 1.5 million ART cycles per year worldwide. (See https://www.eshre.eu/guidelines-and-legal/art-fact-sheet.aspx) Each of these cycles likely results in one or more embryos in storage.

  3. The HFEA in the United Kingdom reports that as at December 2012, there were approximately 18,000 eggs in storage for own use. The usual limit on egg freezing is 10 years. (See www.hfea.gov.uk/46.html).

  4. To be clear, this is a claim about emotional attachment, not a claim about moral status.

  5. UK Biobank had adopted a ‘trust’ model that goes beyond simple broad consent. The Ethics and Governance Council has an on-going remit to (i) ensure that UK Biobank abides by the Ethics and Governance Framework and (ii) monitor UK Biobank’s duties to participants, its relationship with users of the resource, the principles and mechanisms of access, as well as wider duties to society (UKB EGF 2007).

  6. That genetic samples and information are shared and identifying is standard in genetic ethics, for overview of these arguments. See, Widdows (2007, 2009).

  7. Canavan disease is “an incurable recessive genetic disease that results in degeneration of the brain of children born with the condition followed by inevitable death usually between the ages of ten and fifteen” (Marchant 2005, p. 161). The disease is found amongst Ashkenazi Jews and approximately one in 6400 children are born with it (Marshall 2000).

  8. For a discussion of withdrawal in biobanking, see Holm (2011).

  9. Databases that can be used as comparators are not limited to official databases, such as health records. Potentially any database (including commercial databases such as those that map shopping habits) can be used in cross-referring and triangulation.

  10. For instance, see footnote 5 on the governance practices of UK Biobank aimed to address the ethical limits of informed consent, recognizing that ethical issues will arise over time and after the point of initial consent.

  11. In many jurisdictions, individuals are invited to provide a broad consent to embryo research. Within these jurisdictions, some biobanks will streamline the options. For example, RENEW Biobank at Stanford University identifies two specific streams of embryo research (early human development and genetic reprogramming and/or production of cell lines) and donors can contribute to one or both classes of research. See for example, a sample consent form at https://med.stanford.edu/content/dam/sm/hesc/documents/donations/tissue/8-_External_Clinic_Embryo_Cryo_ResearchConsent14.pdf. In other jurisdictions, most notably Canada, broad consent is not an option. Consent regulations require consent to “a specific research project, the goal of which is stated in the consent” (Canada 2007).

  12. Some countries permit the creation of human embryos for research use [for instance, Australia, Singapore and UK allow the creation of research embryos (Hyun 2014, p. 28)]. In these countries it is possible that embryo providers would make a direct contribution to a human embryo biobank, in which case there would be clearer trajectory from the provider’s body to the biobank.

  13. Many cite Moore v. Regents of the University of California as a point of profound change regarding what is ‘waste’ tissue. Before the genetic era, diseased and discarded tissue was res nullius. In the genetic era, all such tissue became potentially valuable. It follows that if donors realise the value of their reproductive tissues, they may be less willing to donate embryos and eggs to a biobank, particularly if donation is to a commercial rather than a public sector biobank.

  14. Interestingly, Camilla distinguishes between a genetic link with one donor and a genetic link with both donors (as the children would not be full siblings to her children). "In this scale, relinquished embryos represent the highest degree of kinship relatedness as they embody the reproductive parental intention of two previous prospective parents and are possibly genetically linked to them and their offspring” (Zanini 2013, p. 104).

  15. Genetic relatedness can be revealed between two genetic-siblings or half-siblings by comparator testing (say of hair) which can be done on-line or by comparison with genetic databases.

References

  • 23andMe. n.d. Consent and legal agreement. Retrieved 23 October 2015, from www.23andme.com/en-int/about/consent/?version=1.3.

  • Badadur, G., M. Morrison, and L. Machin. 2010. Beyond the ‘embryo question’: Human embryonic stem cell ethics in the context of biomaterial donation in the UK. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 21(7): 868–874.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baylis, F. 2015. Left out in the cold: Arguments against non-medical oocyte cryopreservation. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada 37(1): 64–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baylis, F., B. Beagan, J. Johnston, and N. Ram. 2003. Cryopreserved human embryos in Canada and their availability for research. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada 25: 1026–1031.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blyth, E., L. Frith, M. Paul, and R. Berger. 2011. Embryo relinquishment for family building: How should it be conceptualised? International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family 25(2): 260–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyer, G.J., W. Whipple, R.J. Cadigan, and G.E. Henderson. 2012. Biobanks in the United States: How to identify an undefined and rapidly evolving population. Biopreservation and Biobanking 10(6): 511–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bullock, E., and H. Widdows. 2011. Reconsidering consent and biobanking. In Biobanks and tissue research. The public, the patient and the regulation, ed. C. Lenk, and N. Hoppe, 111–125. Dodrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Canada. 2007. Assisted human reproduction (section 8 consent) regulations, SOR/2007-137. Retrieved 23 October 2015, from http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2007-137/page-1.html.

  • Cattapan, A. and Doyle, A. In press. Patient decision-making about the disposition of surplus cryopreserved embryos in Canada. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada.

  • Cordell, S., and H. Widdows. 2010. Constructing effective ethical frameworks for biobanking. Dilemata: International Journal of Applied Ethics 4(2): 15–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Lacey, S. 2013. Decision making about frozen supernumerary human embryos. Human Fertility 16(1): 31–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Souza, Y.G., and J.S. Greenspan. 2013. Biobanking past, present and future: Responsibilities and benefits. AIDS 27(3): 303–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elger, B. 2010. Ethical issues of human genetic databases: A challenge to classical research ethics?. Farnham: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faden, R.R., and T.L. Beauchamp. 1986. A history and theory of informed consent. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grady, C., L. Eckstein, B. Berkman, D. Brock, R. Cook-Deegan, S.M. Fullerton, H. Greely, M.G. Hansson, S. Hull, S. Kim, B. Lo, R. Pentz, L. Rodriguez, C. Weil, B.S. Wilfond, and D. Wendler. 2015. Broad consent for research with biological samples: Workshop conclusions. American Journal of Bioethics 15(9): 34–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greely, H.T. 2000. Iceland’s plan for genomics research: Facts and implications. Jurimetrics 40: 153–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haimes, E., and K. Taylor. 2009. Fresh embryo donation for human embryonic stem cell (hESC) research: The experiences and values of IVF couples asked to be embryo donors. Human Reproduction 9: 2142–2150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, J.M., M.K. Lee, B. Newman, J.E. Morrow, L.A. Anderson, B. Huey, and M.C. King. 1990. Linkage of early-onset familial breast cancer to chromosome 17q21. Science 250(4988): 1684–1689.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, D.I., G.L. Zellman, C.C. Fair, J.F. Mayer, J.G. Zeitz, W.E. Gibbons, T.G. Jr Turner, and Society for Assisted Reproduction Technology (SART) and RAND. 2003. Cryopreserved embryos in the United States and their availability for research. Fertility and Sterility 79(5): 1063–1069.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holm, S. 2011. Withdrawing from research: A rethink in the context of research biobanks. Health Care Analysis 19(3): 269–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Homer, N., Szelinger, S., Redman, M., Duggan, D., Tembe, W., Muehling, J., Pearson, J. V., Stephan, D. A., Nelson, S. F. and Craig, D. W. 2008. Resolving individuals contributing trace of DNA to highly complex mixtures using high-density SNP genotyping microarrays. PLoS Genetics 4: doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1000167. Retrieved 23 October 2015, from www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1000167#references.

  • Hyun, I. 2014. Regulate embryos made for research. Nature 509: 27–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaposy, C. 2013. A disability critique of the new prenatal test for Down syndrome. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 23(4): 299–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, Z., A.B. Owen, and R.B. Altman. 2004. Genomic research and human subject privacy. Science 305: 183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lomax, G.P., and A.O. Trounson. 2013. Correcting misperceptions about cryopreserved embryos and stem cell research. Nature Biotechnology 31(4): 288–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacCallum, F., and H. Widdows. 2012. Ethical decisions in embryo donation. In Reproductive donation: Practice, policy and bioethics, ed. M. Richards, G. Pennings, and J. Appleby, 270–288. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Madeira, J.L. 2010. Conceivable changes: Effectuating infertile couples’ emotional ties to frozen embryos through new disposition options. UMKC Law Review 79(2): 315–332.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marchant, G.E. 2005. Property rights and benefit sharing for DNA donors? Jurimetrics 45: 153–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, E. 2000. Families sue hospital, scientist for control of Canavan Gene. Science 290: 1062.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGuire, A.L. 2008. Identifiability of DNA data: The need for consistent federal policy. American Journal of Bioethics 8: 75–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, E. 2013. Inside 23and Me founder Ann Wojcicki $99 DNA revolution. Retrieved 23 October 2015, from http://www.fastcompany.com/3018598/for-99-this-ceo-can-tell-you-what-might-kill-you-inside-23andme-founder-anne-wojcickis-dna-r.

  • Nahman, M. 2008. Nodes of desire: Romanian egg sellers, ‘dignity’ and feminist alliances in transnational ova exchanges. European Journal of Woman’s Studies 15: 65–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nachtigall, R., G. Becker, C. Friese, A. Butler, and K. MacDougall. 2005. Parents’ conceptualization of their frozen embryos complicates the disposition decision. Fertility and Sterility 84(2): 431–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nachtigall, R.D., K. MacDougall, J. Harrington, J. Duff, M. Lee, and G. Becker. 2009. How couples who have undergone IVF decide what to do with surplus frozen embryos. Fertility and Sterility 92(6): 2094–2096.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. 2009. Guidelines on human biobanks and genetic research databases. Retrieved 23 October 2015, from www.oecd.org/sti/biotech/44054609.pdf.

  • Petropanagos, A., A. Cattapan, F. Baylis, and A. Leader. 2015. Social egg freezing: Risk, benefit and social considerations. Canadian Medical Association Journal 187(9): 666–669.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Provoost, V., G. Pennings, P. De Sutter, V. Van de Velde, and M. Dhont. 2012. Trends in embryo disposition decisions: Patients’ responses to a 15-year mailing program. Human Reproduction 27(2): 506–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, D.M., B.S. Elger, and F. Colledge. 2014. What is a biobank? Differing definitions among biobank stakeholders. Clinical Genetics 85: 223–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snow, D., A. Cattapan, and F. Baylis. 2015. Contesting estimates of cryopreserved embryos in the United States. Nature Biotechnology 33(9): 909.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, C. 2005. Making parents: The ontological choreography of reproductive technologies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trivedi, D., R. Cromer, J. Dasig, M. Suarez, and B. Behr. 2013. Human embryo donation for research: RENEW Biobank experience. Fertility and Sterility 99(3): S15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UK Biobank Ethics and Governance Framework (UKB EGF). 2007. Retrieved 23 October 2015, from www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/EGF20082.pdf.

  • Widdows, H. 2013. The connected self: The ethics and governance of the genetic individual. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Widdows, H., and S. Cordell. 2011. Ethics of biobanking: Key issues and controversies. Health Care Analysis 19(3): 207–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Widdows, H. 2009. Between the individual and the community: The impact of genetics on ethical models. New Genetics and Society 28(2): 173–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Widdows, H. 2007. Reconceptualising ethics: Challenges to traditional medical ethics. In Ethics and law of intellectual property: Current problems in politics, science and technology, ed. C. Lenk, N. Hoppe, and R. Andorno, 159–174. Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zanini, G. 2013. Neither gametes nor children: Italian prospective parents and the variable meaning of donor embryos. Tecnoscienza 4(1): 87–109.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Research for this paper was funded, in part, by Canadian Institutes of Health Research Grant No. EOG111389, “A comparative study of assisted human reproduction patients’ views about the donation of eggs and embryos for scientific and clinical research.” As well, it is important to recognize the generous support of the Brocher Foundation in providing FB with a contemplative environment in which to finish revisions to this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Novel Tech Ethics, Faculty of Medicine, Dalhousie University, P.O. Box 15000, 1379 Seymour Street, Halifax, NS, B3H 4R2, Canada

    Françoise Baylis

  2. Centre for the Study of Global Ethics, Department of Philosophy, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK

    Heather Widdows

Authors
  1. Françoise Baylis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Heather Widdows
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Françoise Baylis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Baylis, F., Widdows, H. Human embryos and eggs: from long-term storage to biobanking. Monash Bioeth. Rev. 33, 340–359 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40592-015-0045-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40592-015-0045-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation