New Zealand is hypocritical in accepting the results of research on embryos carried out elsewhere but preventing similar research here, writes Prof Gareth Jones.
An advertisement appeared in newspapers (including the ODT) recently headed ''Sperm and embryos in storage?'' It was an announcement from Fertility Associates to inform the public that from November 22 any sperm, embryos, eggs plus other reproductive tissues in storage with it will be discarded.
This is a legal requirement under the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Storage Amendment Act: that tissue is not to be stored for more than 10 years, although extensions can be provided by the Ethics Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology.
The reality of IVF is that embryos in storage this long will probably be surplus to the requirements for couples in IVF programmes.
They are to be discarded when the couples have completed their families or decided not to proceed with IVF. Neither are they donated to others in an IVF programme.
In theory, there is another option: allow the embryos to be used for research into infertility and into ways of better understanding what goes wrong in early development. But this is not an option in New Zealand, an unusual situation internationally.
The message this gives is that it is ethically acceptable to destroy unwanted embryos, but ethically unacceptable to use any of those same embryos for scientific purposes (with consent of all involved).
It was with this in mind I recently wrote an article in the New Zealand Medical Journal: ''Where does New Zealand stand on permitting research on human embryos?''
The Act does not prohibit research on embryos, because it is not classed as a prohibited procedure.
The Advisory Committee has to consult the public and provide advice to the Minister of Health.
If the minister agrees with this advice, he/she gives the go-ahead for the Advisory Committee to draw up guidelines so that the Ethics Committee can consider applications.
In mid-2007 the Advisory Committee advised the then minister to proceed with research on surplus embryos.
Since that time the go-ahead has never been provided, the only reason apparently being that there is no public consensus on the matter.
The current situation gives the impression of protecting embryos, but fails to do this since embryos have to be discarded for legal reasons.
If research on surplus embryos from IVF programmes was to be permitted, no additional embryos would be destroyed. Hence, if the destruction of embryos is the point at issue, New Zealand should not allow either IVF or pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, both of which are currently established procedures under the Act.
Once IVF is available, every effort should be made to ensure that children born using this procedure are as healthy as possible.
This is an ethical obligation built into the Act.
This, in turn, demands ongoing research, since new modifications are regularly entering clinical practice and have led to a doubling of the success rate of IVF.
New Zealand is out of step with international practice and while this by itself does not justify allowing research on embryos, a clear rationale for the situation needs to be given. Public debate on this is urgently needed.
While there are models of how countries have responded to IVF, the majority allow research on embryos surplus to the clinical requirements of IVF programmes. Examples include Australia, Canada, France, and Norway.
It is not possible at present for reproductive biologists in New Zealand to contribute to work on the earliest stages of human development, including ways of improving IVF procedures.
Examples include finding out more about the environmental sensitivity of the embryo before implantation, and the biochemical features of early embryonic development.
Neither is it possible for them to contribute to work on uncovering the causes of inherited genetic diseases.
In addition, they can have no input into the development of human embryonic stem cell lines for the potential treatment of degenerative diseases in the adult.
While this is controversial, work like this is needed for a better understanding of adult stem cell lines and induced pluripotential stem cells, all of which are interrelated.
These are exciting fields with considerable potential for contributing to human health in the future.
Everything that is possible in science should not be undertaken.
And a society can decide it does not wish to be involved on ethical grounds.
Similarly, those with ethical objections to research on human embryos are under no obligation to utilise IVF, and probably should not do so. But it is hypocritical to accept the results of research (on embryos) carried out elsewhere, but prevent similar research here.
We may feel virtuous, but we are nothing of the kind.
Gareth Jones is emeritus professor in anatomy and bioethics at the University of Otago. He served on the Advisory Committee from 2005 to 2011.
