{
  "abstract": "Stem cell-based human embryo models (SCBEMs), generated in vitro from stem cells, currently exist outside the scope of regulatory frameworks that govern in vitro embryo research in most jurisdictions. A widely discussed proposal suggests using a ‘Turing test’ framework, whereby regulatory oversight is triggered if an SCBEM is found to be ‘equivalent’ to a human embryo. In this paper, we argue that such a proposal faces two major complications. First, sophisticated laboratory techniques such as trophoblast replacement allow researchers to manipulate normal embryogenesis, obscuring whether a given SCBEM meets embryo-like regulatory thresholds. Second, attempts to assess SCBEMs’ developmental potential—especially through non-human analogues—rest on tenuous epistemic assumptions that may not align with human-specific developmental trajectories. Given SCBEMs’ potential manipulability and uncertain biological and potentiality benchmarks, we argue that reliance on equivalence-based frameworks alone is highly problematic. We conclude by urging a cautious, flexible approach that recognises both the scientific promise of SCBEMs and the normative need to prevent the circumvention of regulatory safeguards.",
  "authors": [
    {
      "affiliations": [
        "Centre for Biomedical Ethics, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore"
      ],
      "name": "Jonathan Lewis"
    },
    {
      "affiliations": [
        "Centre for Social Ethics and Policy, Department of Law, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK"
      ],
      "name": "Soren Holm"
    }
  ],
  "title": "Manipulating embryogenesis and testing for potential: two real problems for the regulation of stem cell-based embryo models",
  "uid": "e9f5a429-b290-51dc-9a1f-882c8b6a4981"
}