GROUNDBREAKING changes proposed by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) offer potential benefits for people undergoing fertility treatment, while implicitly touching on the value, nature, and status assigned to the human embryo.

Given the clinical, moral, ethical, and legal significance of the debate, Christians should contribute to it. But to do so effectively requires two elements: first, an appreciation of the science and the legal changes being proposed; and, second, an articulation of the values affected by those changes and their consequences.

For 40 years, human-embryo experimentation has been shaped by the 1984 Warnock report and regulated by the HFEA. Warnock refers to the “special status” of the human embryo — a loose definition that, nevertheless, places a higher value on human than animal embryos.

The report underpinned the UK Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act (1990), which introduced a 14-day post-fertilisation time limit on embryo experimentation. This limit coincides with appearance of the “primitive streak”, after which the embryo can no longer split to form twins. Thus the “special status” label carried notions of potential personhood and individuality. The switch to a 28-day limit, proposed by the HFEA, would permit research up to the stage at which studies of aborted embryos are feasible.

The HFEA’s recommendation to the Government for law reform is a response to rapid advances in both medicine and science, and to prevailing societal attitudes, beliefs, and needs related to falling fertility rates. Increasing numbers of people are taking advantage of access to assisted reproductive technology (ART); in the UK, more than 50,000 patients a year undergo in vitro fertilisation (IVF), and about 400,000 related live births have been recorded over 30 years.

These figures reflect the strong emotional desire of couples to have children genetically related to themselves. Extended embryo research promises improvements in IVF success rates, as does technology applied to embryo selection before implantation. For example, genetic screening is already used to avoid embryos affected by conditions that cause miscarriage, serious disease, or disability, while AI may help to select “healthy” embryos.

THE growth in IVF has resulted in an estimated 500,000 embryos stored frozen in the UK, with some 130,000 discarded since 1991. Both these numbers will increase, particularly since legal reform in 2022 to allow storage for up to 55 years. Many parents struggle emotionally to discard surplus embryos, frequently experiencing grief and distress, while storage costs mean that other embryos are abandoned, leaving the clinic with a decision to make.

The HFEA is exploring how to simplify consent to donate embryos for research, something that would facilitate use of surplus frozen embryos, most of which will never be implanted.

In parallel to human-embryo experimentation, the HFEA is deliberating about the need for a specific legal or regulatory framework for the creation of stem-cell-based embryo models, sometimes termed “synthetic human embryos”. Here, different types of stem cells making up an embryo are mixed, yielding 3D models closely resembling natural embryos.

The HFEA is also considering progress in in vitro gametogenesis, in which egg and sperm are derived from body tissues, such as skin. This would allow people to have a genetically related child despite not having viable eggs or sperm themselves. Although this is currently far off, same-sex parents could have children without donor egg or sperm, or a single woman might provide tissue to create both sperm and eggs, allowing her to have a baby on her own.

Allied to the clinical and scientific drivers, the potential commercial benefits for UK bioscience will further influence the Government in relation to ART-related law reform.

YET, each area (i.e. embryo experimentation, selection, and storage, as well as artificial creation of sperm, egg, and embryos) carries moral and ethical dimensions.

The Christian faith has much to offer in response: foundational beliefs about the sanctity of life; the origins of personhood; the unique value, identity, and dignity of each individual; the equality of all; the purpose of family and relationships therein; the distinction between means and ends; love of neighbour; and protection of the vulnerable are all directly relevant to the matters at hand.

Currently, however, the Church seems to be insufficiently vocal on how these values might shape societal decisions. Contributions, when they do come, appear reactive not proactive, missing an opportunity for leadership.

Forty years on from Warnock, Christians need to re-examine the “special status” of the human embryo from moral, ethical, social, and legal standpoints, along with the wider implications of ART. The Anglican Communion Science Commission might offer a rallying point for leadership, reflection, and action. A theology of embryology is needed, combined with a deep understanding, care, and concern for those facing childlessness.

None of this will be straightforward. The issues are sensitive and pressing: individual Christians will be faced with complex personal dilemmas; and those in ministry will need equipping to provide pastoral support, while church leaders and theologians should come together, as far as possible across denominations, to outline the underlying values at play and the consequences of the different paths that individuals and society might follow.

In responding, we can look to Jesus, who demonstrated understanding of both suffering and the imperfection of the world. Time and again, in the midst of that imperfection, he showed how to bring sacred values to bear in difficult circumstances. Surely the Church is called to do likewise.

Dr Christopher Wild is Emeritus Director of the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer, and a former professor in the medical school at the University of Leeds.