Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Personal communication, Jeff Nisker (past member of the Discussion Group), December 4, 2008.

  2. FB prepared an expert opinion for the federal government in relation to the Québec reference (see, Baylis 2006).

  3. For example, research in pursuit of a non-prohibited objective that uses embryos originally created for reproductive purposes but no longer needed for such purposes.

  4. Personal communication, Susan Zimmerman (Executive Director of the Interagency Secretariat on Research Ethics), December 1, 2008.

  5. June 27, 2008 it was announced that there would be no Update to the Guidelines for Stem Cell Research (last updated June 29, 2007). See http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/36552.html, accessed on December 1, 2008. Also, personal communication, Manon Lechasseur July 2, 2008.

References

  • Assisted Human Reproduction Act, S.C. 2004, c.2 [AHR Act].

  • Attorney General of QuĂ©bec v. Attorney General of Canada. Province of QuĂ©bec Court of Appeal. 2006. No. 500-09-015177-041 C.A.

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Baylis, F. 2002. Betwixt and between human stem cell guidelines and legislation. Health Law Review 11:44–50.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 QuĂ©bec v. Attorney General of Canada. Province of QuĂ©bec Court of Appeal. No. 500-09-015177-041 C.A. August 2006.

  • 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 

  • 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].

  • 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].

  • 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].

  • 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].

  • 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].

  • 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.

  • 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].

  • 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 

  • Health Canada. 1995. News Release. Health Minister calls for moratorium on applying nine reproductive technologies and practices in humans. 27 July 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  • Health Canada. 1996a. News Release. Comprehensive national policy on management of New Reproductive and Genetic Technologies proposed. 14 June 1996.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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].

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Medical Research Council of Canada. 1987. Guidelines on research involving human subjects. Ottawa: Medical Research Council of Canada. [MRC].

    Google Scholar 

  • 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).

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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].

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pal, L., and J. Maxwell. 2004. Assessing the public interest in the 21st century: A framework. Ottawa: Canadian Policy Research Networks.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rivard, G., and Hunter J. 2005. The Law of Assisted Human Reproduction. Markham, LexisNexis.

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies. 1990. Royal commission takes “total society” approach to new reproductive technologies. News Release [RCNRT].

  • Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies. 1992. Update. (August), 1992. RCNRT.

  • 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].

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Supreme Court of Canada. 2008. Order Motion. Attorney General of Canada v. Attorney General of QuĂ©bec (Qc) (32750), 10 November 2008.

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tri-Agencies. 2002. Memorandum of Understanding. http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/institution/mou_e.htm. Accessed 5 December 2008.

  • 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.

  • Vogel, G. 2000. Stem cell scorecard. Science 290:1673. doi:10.1126/science.290.5497.1673.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dalhousie University, Novel Tech Ethics, 1234 Le Marchant Street, Halifax, NS, Canada, B3H 3P7

    Françoise Baylis

  2. School of Law, Loyola University Chicago, 25 E. Pearson St., Chicago, IL, 60611, USA

    Matthew Herder

Authors
  1. Françoise Baylis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Matthew Herder
    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

Cite this article

Baylis, F., Herder, M. Policy Design for Human Embryo Research in Canada: A History (Part 1 of 2). Bioethical Inquiry 6, 109–122 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-009-9135-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-009-9135-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation