Skip to main content

Of research and reproduction: defining embryo ‘Research’ in Canada

Monash Bioethics Review volume 33, pages 379–395 (2015)Cite this article

Abstract

This article traces how embryo research has been theorized in Canada from the late 1980s to the current day. We find that research on human embryos has gradually come to be viewed in dichotomous terms, with scientific research pulled apart from experimentation to improve assisted reproduction procedures within fertility clinics. This distinction has been made manifest most clearly in the federal government’s 2007 consent regulations. The distinction between ‘improvement of assisted reproduction procedures’ and ‘research’ is problematic on two accounts. First, interviews reveal that many Canadian IVF patients do not distinguish between the improvement of assisted reproduction and broader conceptions of ‘research’. This suggests that patients may be consenting to participate in embryo experimentation even where they do not understand its purposes. Second, the dichotomy may allow researchers and clinicians to evade research protocols that might otherwise apply in Canadian law. This could permit fertility clinics to conduct what might in other contexts fall under the category of ‘research’ without prescribed oversight, and may even enable clinicians and researchers to engage in practices that policymakers deliberately sought to proscribe. We call for a re-evaluation of the legal distinctions on embryo experimentation built into Canadian law, and indeed built into broader discussions of embryo research.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Notes

  1. Where possible, we use the term ‘experimentation’ to describe embryo research more broadly. Although the other contributions to this volume often use the word ‘research’, the distinction in Canadian law between ‘improving assisted reproduction procedures’, ‘providing instruction in assisted reproduction procedures’, and ‘a specific research project, the goal of which is stated in the consent’ renders a different term necessarily to describe all forms of what would otherwise be considered ‘embryonic research’.

  2. While the Medical Research Council recognized the improvement of fertility treatments as the only legitimate form of research, the Council noted that it was possible that with ‘the evolution of social and ethical values and further scientific development' other kinds of embryonic research might be reasonably pursued (Medical Research Council of Canada 1987).

  3. The Royal Commission used the terms ‘zygote’ and ‘embryo’ in different ways at different times. Following the Royal Commission, ‘in the language of biologists, before implantation the fertilized egg is termed a “zygote” rather than an “embryo” […] The terms embryo donation, embryo transfer, and embryo research are therefore inaccurate, since these all occur with zygotes, not embryos. Nevertheless, because the terms are still commonly used in the public debate, we continue to refer to embryo research, embryo donation, and embryo transfer’ (1993, p. 3). For purposes of this article, and in keeping with common usage we use the term ‘embryo’ to refer to both zygotes and embryos.

  4. With respect to embryos, the final version of the AHRA prohibits human embryonic cloning for both therapeutic and reproductive reasons; combining human and non-human reproductive material; purchasing embryos; maintaining an in vitro embryo for more than 14 days; the creation of embryos for purposes other than ‘creating a human being or improving or providing instruction in assisted reproduction procedures’; and the use of reproductive material without consent (Canada 2004).

  5. For further details about the study methodology and findings, see Cattapan and Doyle (forthcoming).

  6. Some participants did make clearer distinctions between research and improving reproduction or providing instruction in ARTs. One woman suggested that she and her husband might want to donate to scientific research rather than the improvement of assisted reproduction procedures, as the success rates in fertility clinics had reached ‘the natural kind of success rate’ and ‘maybe chronic diseases may be more beneficial or a better place to put those dollars as opposed to fertility’. Another patient suggested she might choose to donate her embryos to the clinic for ‘training or teaching’, because it was not clear to her what kind of research might be conducted.

References

  • Backhouse, D., and M. Deckha. 2009. Shifting rationales: The waning influence of feminism on Canada’s embryo research restrictions. Canadian Journal of Women and the Law 21(2): 229–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baird, P. 1997. Human embryo research in Canada: Legal and policy aspects. Human Reproduction 12(1): 2343–2345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bangsbøll, S., et al. 2004. Patients’ attitudes towards donation of surplus cryopreserved embryos for treatment or research. Human Reproduction 19(10): 2415–2419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baylis, F., and M. Herder. 2009. Policy design for human embryo research in Canada: A history (part 1 of 2). Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 6(1): 109–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baylis, F., and H. Widdows. 2015. Human embryos and eggs: From long-term storage to biobanking. Monash Bioethics Review 33.

  • Burton, P.J., and K. Sanders. 2004. Patient attitudes to donation of embryos for research in Western Australia. Medical Journal of Australia 180(11): 559–561.

    Google Scholar 

  • Canada. 1996a. An Act respecting human reproductive technologies and commercial transactions relating to human reproduction (Bill C-47).

  • Canada. 1996b. Parliament. House of Commons. Debates. 23 October. 35th Parliament, 2nd Session, Vol 134, No 89, 5614–15 (Pauline Picard, BQ).

  • Canada. 1996c. Parliament. House of Commons. Debates. 31 October. Parliament, 2nd Session, Vol 134, No 94: 5966 (Grant Hill, Reform).

  • Canada. 1997. Parliament. House of Commons Standing Committee on Health. Evidence. Meeting 33, 12 December. 39th Parliament, 1st session (Fiona Miller).

  • Canada. 2004. Assisted Human Reproduction Act. S.C. 2004, c. 2 (Bill C-6).

  • Canada. 2006. Parliament. House of Commons Standing Committee on Health. Evidence. Meeting 33, 12 December. 39th Parliament, 1st session (William Buckett).

  • Canada. 2007. Assisted Human Reproduction (Section 8 Consent) Regulations. SOR/2007-137. http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/SOR-2007-137.pdf. Accessed 14 Dec 2015.

  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada [CIHR et al.]. 2014. Tri-Council policy statement: Ethical conduct for research involving humans. Ottawa, ON: Secretariat on Responsible Conduct of Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cattapan, A., and A. Doyle. Forthcoming. Patient decision making on the disposition of surplus cryopreserved embryos in Canada. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada.

  • Caulfield, T., and T. Bubela. 2007. Why a criminal ban? Analyzing the arguments against somatic cell nuclear transfer in the Canadian parliamentary debate. American Journal of Bioethics 7(2): 51–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Discussion Group on Embryo Research. 1995. Research on human embryos: Final report of the Discussion Group on Embryo Research. Ottawa, ON: Health Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Downie, J., and F. Baylis. 2013. Transnational trade in human eggs: Law, policy, and (in)action in Canada. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 41(1): 224–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gruben, V., and A. Cameron. 2014. Quebec’s constitutional challenge to the Assisted Human Reproduction Act: Overlooking women’s reproductive autonomy. In Fertile ground: Exploring reproduction in Canada, ed. S. Paterson, F. Scala, and M.K. Sokolon, 125–151. Montreal, QC: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Health Canada. 1996. New reproductive technologies: Setting boundaries, enhancing health. Ottawa, ON: Minister of Supply and Services Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hug, K. 2008. Motivation to donate or not donate surplus embryos for stem-cell research: Literature review. Fertility and Sterility 89(2): 263–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyerly, A.D., et al. 2006. Factors that affect infertility patients’ decisions about disposition of frozen embryos. Fertility and Sterility 85(6): 1623–1630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMahon, C.A., et al. 2003. Embryo donation for medical research: Attitudes and concerns of potential donors. Human Reproduction 18(4): 871–877.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Medical Research Council of Canada. 1987. Guidelines on research involving human subjects. Ottawa, ON: Medical Research Council of Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mohler-Kuo, M., et al. 2009. Attitudes of couples towards the destination of surplus embryos: Results among couples with cryopreserved embryos in Switzerland. Human Reproduction 24(8): 1930–1938.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris, S.G. 2007. Canada’s Assisted Human Reproduction Act: A chimera of religion and politics. American Journal of Bioethics 7(2): 69–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nachtigall, R.D., et al. 2005. Parents’ conceptualization of their frozen embryos complicates the disposition decision. Fertility and Sterility 84(2): 431–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Provoost, V., et al. 2012. Trends in embryo disposition decisions: Patients’ responses to a 15-year mailing program. Human Reproduction 27(2): 506–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies. 1993. Proceed with care: Final report of the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies. Ottawa, ON: Minister of Government Services Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samorinha, C., et al. 2014. Factors associated with the donation and non-donation of embryos for research: A systematic review. Human Reproduction Update 20(5): 641–655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Victoria. 1984. Committee to consider the social, ethical and legal issues arising from in vitro fertilisation. Libraries Australia Authorities (Record ID 36518755).

  • Warnock, M. 1985. A question of life: The Warnock report on human fertilization and embryology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada

    Alana Cattapan

  2. Department of Political Science, University of Guelph, Guelph, Canada

    Dave Snow

Authors
  1. Alana Cattapan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dave Snow
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dave Snow.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cattapan, A., Snow, D. Of research and reproduction: defining embryo ‘Research’ in Canada. Monash Bioeth. Rev. 33, 379–395 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40592-015-0044-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40592-015-0044-9

Keywords

  • Embryo research
  • Canada
  • Infertility
  • Informed consent
  • Embryonic stem cell research