Reply: Stem cell-based embryo models: scientific promise clashes with ethical reality
Clicks: 19
ID: 321052
2026
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Emerging Content
5.4
/100
19 views
6 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
EmergingRanked #55 of 98 articles by views in human reproduction (oxford, england)
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
We thank Boiani and Denker (Boiani and Denker 2026) for their engagement with our article. Like them, we welcome involvement with these issues by authors from a variety of backgrounds and disciplines. We refute, however, the suggestion that our white paper is coloured by the commercial interests of nine of its 44 authors. Our conflict of interest declaration is offered in good faith and in compliance with the requirements of the journal. We now address each of Denker and Boiani’s three substantive points: To their first point, we disagree that stem cell-based embryo models (SCBEMs) should be referred to as ‘asexual embryos’. This term is used to describe a method by which organisms reproduce and therefore is biologically imprecise if used to refer to the broad category of SCBEMs (as noted elsewhere, SCBEMs today are not able to develop into human beings). The term is rhetorically loaded and risks misleading the public. We note that in the past, IVF was sometimes labelled asexual, with consequences for public perception. The characterization of induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC) donors as ‘parents’ of SCBEMs can lead to confusion; the relationship between a somatic cell donor and an entity derived from their reprogrammed cells is fundamentally different from parenthood in established biological, ethical, or legal senses.
| Reference Key |
openalex_W7168393859
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Alfonso Martinez Arias, Nicolas Rivron, Shahragim Tajbakhsh, Josephine Johnston, Cantas Alev, Laure Bally-Cuif, Elvan Böke, Tommaso Cavazza, Emma Cave, David Cyranoski, Laurent David, Miguel A Esteban, Jianping Fu, Niels Geijsen, Nienke De Graeff, Jacob H Hanna, Nick Hopwood, Maneesha S Inamdar, Fredrik Lanner, Brigitte Leeners, Zhen Liu, Jean Leon Maitre, Gabriella Minchiotti, Naomi Moris, Megan Munsie, Kathy K Niakan, Olivier Pourquie, Vincent Pasque, Martin Pera, Yaojin Peng, Sophie Petropoulos, Sharad Ramanathan, Janet Rossant, Peter Rugg-Gunn, Mitinori Saitou, Karen Sermon, Jose Silva, Thorold Theunissen, Margherita Turco, John Wallingford, Hongmei Wang, Aryeh Warmflash, Jun Wu, Leqian Yu |
| Journal | human reproduction (oxford, england) |
| Year | 2026 |
| DOI |
10.1093/humrep/deag113
|
| URL | |
| Keywords | Keywords not found |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.