Assisting conception, regulating research
As assisted reproduction moved from experiment to standard practice, new kinds of embryo images were recruited to win public acceptance.
In Britain the Conservative deregulation of healthcare in the 1980s encouraged the foundation of commercial infertility clinics competing with National Health Service centres. To improve the low success rate, fertility specialists fertilized and implanted multiple eggs, but some ‘spares’ remained and scientists proposed to use them for research. The government supported research under close state supervision, but only for 14 days after fertilization, i.e., before the migration of epiblast cells (‘primitive streak’ formation) and neurulation (the onset of central nervous system development).
When parliament resisted, scientists mobilized and the public debate brought images of embryos to broadsheet pages. Media stories told of families ‘blessed with children’ post-IVF. The distinction between ‘natural’ and ‘assisted’ conception was blurred. All development was framed as uncertain, fragile and in need of assistance; embryos were increasingly pictured as collections of cells rather than Nilsson’s homunculi. In 1990 parliament passed the Human Fertilization and Embryology Act. Yet the 14-day limit remains contested both by those arguing for the continuity of life from conception, and by embryologists, for many of whom it marks no significant boundary.
![]() A ‘grade-one’ eight-cell embryo photographed in an assisted conception clinic, mid-1990s |
![]() Assisting conception, producing families, 2007 |