Abstract
The case of embryo research provides insight into the challenges for historians and philosophers of science who want to engage social issues, and even more challenges in engaging society. Yet there are opportunities in doing so. History and philosophy of science research demonstrates that the public impression of embryos does not fit with our scientific understanding. In cases where there are competing understandings of the phenomena and public impacts, we have to negotiate social responses. Historians and philosophers of science can both inform and learn from engaging in the process, by helping to recognize underlying assumptions and by demonstrating changing ideas over time and what factors have caused the changes.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
cspo.org. Accessed 20 April 2013.
Edwards and Steptoe (1980).
H.R. 212, 2011, http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.212.
Pius IX (1869).
Dickey-Wicker Amendment, Public Law 104-99, 110 Statute 34 (1996).
Maienschein (2013).
Hume (1977).
Wade (1999). That there is a significant public that makes assumptions that embryos, like persons, have integrity, autonomy, and individuality became clear to me in discussions in the 105th Congress, as my diaries from staff discussions show very clearly. In addition, recent debates and public discussions circle back to these concepts repeatedly, often invoking one or all of them as arguments for why we need to protect embryos more fully. Even those with more nuanced views often point to embryos as having at the least individuality and integrity of that single, whole self, which become autonomous over time. This is not the place for a detailed discussion of the complex philosophical or theological literature on the topic.
Hopwood 2000); Maienschein et al. (2005). See also the website of the Human Development Anatomy Center, accessed November 2012, http://www.medicalmuseum.mil/index.cfm?p=collections.hdac.index.
McGee and Caplan (1999).
Driesch (1892).
Loeb (1899).
Mintz (1962).
Stevens (1970).
For a summary, see Heathcotte (2005).
References
Aristotle. (1979). Generation of Animals (trans: Peck, A. L.) Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Brandt, A. (2007). The cigarette century: The rise, fall, and deadly persistence of the product that defined America. New York: Basic Books.
Driesch, H. (1892). Entwicklungsmechanische Studien. II. Der Werth der beiden ersten Furchungszellen in der Echinodermentwicklung. Experimentelle Erzeugen von Theilund Doppelbildung. Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Zoologie 53(1891–1892):16–178. Translated in B. Willier & J. M. Oppenheimer (Eds.), (1964) Foundations of experimental embryology (pp. 38–50). New York: Hafner.
Edwards, R. G., & Steptoe, P. (1980). A matter of life: The story of a medical breakthrough. New York: Morrow.
Gearhart, J. (1998). New potential for human embryonic stem cells. Science, 282, 1061–1062.
Gilbert, S. F. (2013). Developmental biology (10th ed.). Sunderland: Sinauer.
Hamburger, V. (1988). The heritage of experimental embryology: Hans Spemann and the organizer. New York: Oxford University Press.
Harrison, R. G. (1910). The outgrowth of the nerve fiber as a mode of protoplasmic outgrowth. Journal of Experimental Zoology, 9(1910), 787–846.
Heathcotte, B. (2005). Jeter v. Mayo Clinic Arizona, in the Embryo project encyclopedia. http://embryo.asu.edu/view/embryo:125162. Accessed March 30, 2013.
Hopwood, N. (2000). Producing development: The anatomy of human embryos and the norms of Wilhelm his. Bulletin of the History of Medicine, 74, 29–79.
Hume, D. (1977). A treatise of human nature. London: Everyman’s Library. III.1.2.
Loeb, J. (1899). On the nature of the process of fertilization and the artificial Production of normal larvae (Plutei) from the unfertilized eggs of the sea urchin. American Journal of Physiology, 31, 135–138.
Maienschein, J. (2003). Whose view of life? Embryos, cloning, and stem cells. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Maienschein, J. (2013). Finding goodness among is and ought debates in stem-cell research. In V. Hösle (Ed.), Dimensions of goodness (pp. 225–241). Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Maienschein, J., Glitz, M., & Allen, G. E. (Eds.). (2005). The department of embryology, vol. 5 of The Centennial History of the Carnegie Institution of Washington. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McGee, G., & Caplan, A. L. (1999). Human primordial stem cells: What’s in the dish? The Hastings Center Report, 29, 36.
Mintz, B. (1962). Formation of genetically mosaic mouse embryos. American Zoologist, 2, 432.
Oreskes, N., & Conway, E. (2010). Merchants of doubt: How a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. USA: Bloomsbury Press.
Pius IX, P. (1869). Apostolicae Sedis moderationi. Rome: The Holy See.
Proctor, R. (2012). Golden holocaust: Origins of the cigarett catastrophe and the case for abolition. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Shamblott, M. J., et al. (1998). Derivation of pluripotent stem cells from cultured human primordial germ cells. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 95, 13726–13731.
Sherley v. Sebelius, 644 F.3d 388, 390 (D.C. Circuit 2011) (Judge Douglas Ginsburg).
Sherley v. Sebelius, 704 F.Supp.2d 63, 65 (D.C. Circuit 2010) (Judge Royce Lamberth).
Skloot, R. (2010). The immortal life of Henrietta Lacks. New York: Crown.
Stevens, L. (1970). The development of transplantable teratocarcinomas from intratesticular grafts of preand postimplantation mouse embryos. Developmental Biology, 21, 364–382.
Thomson, J., et al. (1998). Embryonic stem cell lines derived from human blastocysts. Science, 282, 1145–1147.
Wade, N. (1999). Embryo cell research: A clash of values. New York Times, July 2 1999.
Acknowledgments
Thanks to Angela Potochnik and the University of Cincinnati for bringing together a group to explore issues about how philosophy of science can engage social issues and society in particular. The research leading to the conference talk and this paper were supported by a number of grants from the National Science Foundation. Arizona State University, especially the Center for Biology and Society and the President’s Office have provided significant support. My colleagues Richard Creath, Manfred Laubichler, a number of wonderful graduate students, and the participants at the conference have helped with lively discussions.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Maienschein, J. Understanding Embryos in a Changing and Complex World: A Case of Philosophers and Historians Engaging Society. Erkenn 79 (Suppl 5), 999–1017 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-013-9540-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-013-9540-6