says that embryos must be destroyed after 14-days. But why 14-days? What’s so significant

說胚胎必須在14天后被銷燬。但為什麼是14天？有什麼意義呢？

about the two week limit, and should we even keep using it?

關於兩個星期的限制，我們是否應該繼續使用它？

Hi there my science buddies. Julian here for DNews. Human embryonic stem cells are one

嗨，我的科學夥伴們。我是DNews的朱利安人類胚胎幹細胞是一種

of the most legally and morally contentious areas of study. On the one hand, stem cells,

最具法律和道德爭議的研究領域。一方面，幹細胞。

both adult and embryonic, are valuable for researching a huge range of illnesses and

無論是成人還是胚胎，對於研究大量的疾病和病理都很有價值。

diseases, from cancer to diabetes to Alzheimer’s. On the other hand, many people believe that

疾病，從癌症到糖尿病到老年痴呆症。另一方面，許多人認為

this benefit to medicine comes at the cost of potential human lives. If you want a bit

這種對醫學的好處是以潛在的人命為代價的。如果你想要一點

of background on the moral and medical controversy surrounding stem cells, you can check out

圍繞幹細胞的道德和醫學爭議的背景，您可以查看以下內容

either of these videos on screen.

這些視頻中的任何一個在螢幕上。

Originally, the 14-day limit comes from a 1979 United States Department of Health, Education,

原來，14天的限制來自於1979年美國衛生、教育部門。

and Welfare report. A committee of theologians, psychologists, and doctors came to a compromise:

和福利報告。一個由神學家、心理學家和醫生組成的委員會達成了一個妥協。

human embryonic stem cells could be studied for two weeks after fertilization, beyond

人類胚胎幹細胞可以在受精後的兩週內進行研究，超過了

which time the cells would have to be destroyed. But this limit was fairly arbitrary, as at

細胞將不得不被破壞。但這一限制是相當隨意的，因為在這時

the time, scientists could not keep embryos alive in vitro for more than a few days.

當時，科學家們無法將胚胎在體外存活超過幾天。

A later report, organized in 1984 by British existential philosopher Mary Warnock, justified

後來，英國存在主義哲學家瑪麗-沃諾克在1984年組織的一份報告，證明了：

the two week limit. The report states that on the 14th or 15th day, a faint line of cells

兩週的限制。報道稱，在第14天或第15天，一排淡淡的細胞。

appears on the embryo, called the “primitive streak”. This, it was argued, is a moment

出現在胚胎上，稱為 "原始條紋"。有人認為，這就是一個時刻

that signifies that the embryo has become an individual being, as before this time the

這標誌著胚胎已經成為一個獨立的生命，因為在這之前。

embryo could potentially split into twin organisms.

胚胎有可能分裂成雙胞胎生物。

One of the reasons this stage appealed to those who objected on moral grounds, was that

這一階段對那些基於道德理由反對的人有吸引力的原因之一是：

if an embryo could split into two people, then it could not yet be an individual person.

如果一個胚胎能分裂成兩個人，那麼它還不能成為一個獨立的人。

The rule codified an easy to measure mark, coupled with an unambiguous time frame; making

該規則規定了一個易於衡量的標記，加上一個明確的時限；使

the question less about conception or “a soul”, while still allowing for a religious

問題不在於受孕或 "靈魂"，而在於仍然允許有一種宗教信仰。

and moral compromise.

和道德上的妥協。

Additionally, a 2002 report from California stated that less than half of all fertilized

此外，加州2002年的一份報告指出，不到一半的受精卵都是通過施肥來實現的。

embryos, both in vitro and in vivo, ever reach the primitive streak, meaning that most of

胚胎，無論是在體外還是在體內，都達到了原始的條紋，這意味著大部分的。

embryos used for research would have been unlikely to make it to term anyway..

用於研究的胚胎本來就不可能成功，反正... ...

But recent advances have made it possible for scientists to keep embryos alive for longer

但最近的進展使得科學家有可能將胚胎的存活時間延長。

than two weeks, by simulating womb-like conditions. With the potential for further research using

超過兩週，通過模擬類似子宮的條件。有可能進一步研究使用

stem cells, the question has been forced again: is the 14-day limit still valid?

幹細胞，問題又被逼了出來：14天的限制還有效嗎？

Some scientists say no. Arguing that they could use the research in preventing miscarriages,

一些科學家說不。爭，他們可以利用這項研究來預防流產。

infertility, and birth defects which they believe to be more important than a more or

不孕不育症和出生缺陷，他們認為這些問題比更多或更多的問題更重要。

less arbitrary time limit. For example, in 2014, researchers were able to cure “induced

較少的任意時間限制。例如，在2014年，研究人員能夠治癒 "誘導的

Parkinson's disease” in rats Neuroscientists used human embryonic stem cells to create

帕金森病 "的大鼠 神經科學家利用人類胚胎幹細胞創造了

neurons that produce dopamine, which is missing in those who suffer from the disease. Although

產生多巴胺的神經元，而這些神經元在患病者中是缺失的。雖然

no human clinical trials have been done, these early results with animals have been very

還沒有進行人體臨床試驗，這些早期的動物試驗結果是非常的

promising.

有望。

That said, other researchers in bioethics have pointed out that even an arbitrary limit

儘管如此，生物倫理學的其他研究人員也指出，即使是任意的限制，也會使人感到不舒服。

is better than no limit at all. As more restrictions are lifted, the very real question becomes

總比沒有限制要好。隨著越來越多的限制被取消，一個非常現實的問題就變成了

“where is the limit on human experimentation in the pursuit of knowledge?”

"在追求知識的過程中，人類實驗的極限在哪裡？"