Advertisement

Journal of Bioethical Inquiry

, Volume 6, Issue 1, pp 109–122 | Cite as

Policy Design for Human Embryo Research in Canada: A History (Part 1 of 2)

  • Françoise Baylis
  • Matthew Herder
Article

Abstract

This article is the first in a two-part review of policy design for human embryo research in Canada. In this article we explain how this area of research is circumscribed by law promulgated by the federal Parliament (the Assisted Human Reproduction Act) and by guidelines issued by the Tri-Agencies (the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans and Updated Guidelines for Human Pluripotent Stem Cell Research). In so doing, we provide the first comprehensive account of the rules currently governing human embryo research in Canada. In this article we also provide a chronological description of relevant policy initiatives and outcomes related to these policy instruments over the past 20 years, with particular attention to public involvement in policy design. This sets the stage for the second article (scheduled to appear in vol. 6 issue 3) in which we critically analyse the history of policy design for human embryo research in Canada, applying a typology of modes of public consultation developed by Eric Montpetit. Our goal is to carefully explain the various episodes of policy development and their corresponding outcomes, in order to more effectively address emerging questions about the legitimacy of future policy initiatives for human embryo research in Canada.

Keywords

Embryos Stem cells Research Policy Public consultation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Thanks are owed to Eric Montpetit and two anonymous reviewers for comments on an earlier draft. As well, the text was reviewed for accuracy by Jeff Nisker (past member of the Discussion Group on Embryo Research) and by Francine Manseau (retired federal public servant actively involved in shepherding the AHR Act through the legislative process). Any errors are our own. This work is supported by a research grant from the Australian Research Council (to Susan Dodds) and a salary award from the Canada Research Chairs program (to Françoise Baylis).

Conflicts of interest statement

Françoise Baylis was a member of the CIHR ad hoc Working Group on Stem Cell Research from November 2000 to December 2001 and a member of the CIHR Governing Council from January 2002 to December 2004. She was a Principal Investigator funded by the Stem Cell Network from January 2002 to December 2005. In 2006 she prepared an Expert Opinion for the federal government in the case before the Québec Court of Appeal. Currently she is a member of the Board of Directors of Assisted Human Reproduction Canada. The views expressed herein are her own.

References

  1. Assisted Human Reproduction Act, S.C. 2004, c.2 [AHR Act].Google Scholar
  2. Attorney General of Québec v. Attorney General of Canada. Province of Québec Court of Appeal. 2006. No. 500-09-015177-041 C.A.Google Scholar
  3. Baird, P. 1995. Proceed with care: New reproductive technologies and the need for boundaries. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 12:491–498. doi: 10.1007/BF02212911.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baylis, F. 2002. Betwixt and between human stem cell guidelines and legislation. Health Law Review 11:44–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Baylis, F. 2006. The regulation of assisted human reproductive technologies and related research: A public health, safety and morality argument. Expert Written Testimony for the federal government of Canada in the matter of Attorney General of Québec v. Attorney General of Canada. Province of Québec Court of Appeal. No. 500-09-015177-041 C.A. August 2006.Google Scholar
  6. Baylis, F., and C. McInnes. 2007. Women at risk: Embryonic and fetal stem cell research in Canada. McGill Journal of Law & Health 1:53–67.Google Scholar
  7. Canadian Institutes of Health Research. ad hoc Working Group on Stem Cell Research. 2001. Human stem cell research: Opportunities for health and ethical perspectives. http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/pdf_14370.htm. Accessed 5 December 2008 [CIHR WG].
  8. Canadian Institutes of Health Research. ad hoc Working Group on Stem Cell Research 2002. Human pluripotent stem cell research: Recommendations for CIHR-funded research. http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/1489.html#public_consultation. Accessed 5 December 2008 [CIHR WG].
  9. Canadian Institutes of Health Research. 2002. Human pluripotent stem cell research: Guidelines for CIHR-funded research. http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/1487.html. Accessed 5 December 2008 [CIHR].
  10. Canadian Institutes of Health Research. 2007a. Updated guidelines for human pluripotent stem cell research. http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/34460.html. Accessed 5 December 2008 [CIHR].
  11. Canadian Institutes of Health Research. 2007b. Guidelines for human pluripotent stem cell research: Policy details. http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/28215.html. Accessed 5 December 2008 [CIHR].
  12. Chapman, A.R., M.S. Frankel, and M.S. Garfinkel. 1999. Stem cell research and applications: Monitoring the frontiers of biomedical research. American Association for the Advancement of Science. http://www.aaas.org/spp/sfrl/projects/stem/report.pdf. Accessed 5 December 2008.
  13. Discussion Group on Embryo Research. 1995. Research on human embryos in Canada: Final report of the discussion group on embryo research. Submitted to Health Canada, 15 November 1995 [Discussion Group].Google Scholar
  14. Hadskis, M. 2007. The regulation of human biomedical research in Canada. In Canadian health law and policy, 3rd ed., eds. Jocelyn Downie, Timothy Caulfield, and Colleen Flood. Markham: LexisNexis Canada.Google Scholar
  15. Health Canada. 1995. News Release. Health Minister calls for moratorium on applying nine reproductive technologies and practices in humans. 27 July 1995.Google Scholar
  16. Health Canada. 1996a. News Release. Comprehensive national policy on management of New Reproductive and Genetic Technologies proposed. 14 June 1996.Google Scholar
  17. Health Canada. 1996b. New reproductive and genetic technologies: Setting boundaries, enhancing health. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/brgtherap/reg-init/cell/tech_reprod_e.html. Accessed 5 December 2008.
  18. Health Canada. 2001. Proposals for legislation governing assisted human reproduction. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/pubs/reprod/overview-apercu/overview_e.html. Accessed 5 December 2008.
  19. Health Canada. 2008. A chronology of the assisted human reproduction Act. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/reprod/hc-sc/general/chronolog_e.html. Accessed 5 December 2008.
  20. Interagency Advisory Panel on Research Ethics. 2008. Seasons of consultations: Engaging your voice in the evolution of the TCPS. http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/english/consultations.cfm. Accessed 5 December 2008 [PRE].
  21. Lerou, P.H., A. Yabuuchi, H. Huo, et al. 2008. Human embryonic stem cell derivation from poor-quality embryos. Nature Biotechnology 26:212–214. doi: 10.1038/nbt1378.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Massey, C. 1993. The public hearings of the royal commission on new reproductive technologies: An evaluation. In Misconceptions: The social construction of choice and the new reproductive and genetic technologies, vol. 1, eds. Gwynne Basen, Margrit Eichler, and Abby Lippman. Hull: Voyager.Google Scholar
  23. McLeod, C., and F. Baylis. 2007. Donating fresh versus frozen embryos to stem cell research: In whose interests? Bioethics 21:465–477. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2007.00592.x.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Medical Research Council of Canada. 1987. Guidelines on research involving human subjects. Ottawa: Medical Research Council of Canada. [MRC].Google Scholar
  25. Medical Research Council of Canada, National Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. 2003. Tri-council policy statement: Ethical conduct for research involving humans. Ottawa: Public Works and Government Services. http://pre.ethics.gc.ca/english/pdf/TCPS%20June2003_E.pdf. Accessed 5 December 2008 [MRC] (including updates effective May 2000 and September 2002).
  26. Montpetit, E. 2003. Public consultation in policy network environments: The case of assisted human reproduction in Canada. Canadian Public Policy XXIX:95–110. doi: 10.2307/3552490.Google Scholar
  27. Montpetit, E. 2004. Policy networks, federalism and managerial ideas: How ART non-decision in Canada safeguards the autonomy of the medical profession. In Comparative biomedical policy: Governing assisted reproductive technologies, eds. Ivar Bleiklie, Malcolm L. Goggin, and Christine Rothmayr. Routledge: London.Google Scholar
  28. National Bioethics Advisory Commission. 1999. Ethical issues in human stem cell research: Report and recommendations of the national bioethics advisory commission. http://www.bioethics.gov/reports/past_commissions/nbac_stemcell1.pdf. Accessed 5 December 2008 [NBAC].
  29. Nisker, J., and A. White. 2005. The CMA Code of Ethics and the donation of fresh embryos for stem cell research. Canadian Medical Association Journal 173:621–622. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.050453.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pal, L., and J. Maxwell. 2004. Assessing the public interest in the 21st century: A framework. Ottawa: Canadian Policy Research Networks.Google Scholar
  31. Rivard, G., and Hunter J. 2005. The Law of Assisted Human Reproduction. Markham, LexisNexis.Google Scholar
  32. Roberts, J.H. 1999. Coalition building and public opinion: New reproductive technologies and Canadian civil society. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 15:15–21. doi: 10.1017/S0266462399015147.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies. 1990. Royal commission takes “total society” approach to new reproductive technologies. News Release [RCNRT].Google Scholar
  34. Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies. 1992. Update. (August), 1992. RCNRT.Google Scholar
  35. Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies. 1993. Proceed with care: The final report of the royal commission on new reproductive technologies, vol. 1 and vol. 2. Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services Canada [RCNRT].Google Scholar
  36. Shamblott, M.J., J. Axelman, S. Wang, et al. 1998. Derivation of pluripotent stem cells from cultured human primordial germ cells. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 95:13726. doi: 10.1073/pnas.95.23.13726.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Supreme Court of Canada. 2008. Order Motion. Attorney General of Canada v. Attorney General of Québec (Qc) (32750), 10 November 2008.Google Scholar
  38. Thomson, J.A., J. Itskovitz-Eldor, S.S. Shapiro, et al. 1998. Embryonic stem cell lines derived from human blastocysts. Science 282:1145–1147. doi: 10.1126/science.282.5391.1145.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tri-Agencies. 2002. Memorandum of Understanding. http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/institution/mou_e.htm. Accessed 5 December 2008.
  40. United Kingdom, Department of Health. 2000. Government response to the recommendations made in the chief medical officer’s expert group report “Stem cell research: Medical progress with responsibility.” http://www.dh.gov.uk/assetRoot/04/05/77/34/04057734.pdf. Accessed 5 December 2008.
  41. Vogel, G. 2000. Stem cell scorecard. Science 290:1673. doi: 10.1126/science.290.5497.1673.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dalhousie UniversityNovel Tech EthicsHalifaxCanada
  2. 2.School of LawLoyola University ChicagoChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations