The question of what form IVF regulation should take is emerging as a rational consideration from the rather emotional excitement that has characterized the response to embryo experimentation. This chapter analyses self-regulation to see how far it is a satisfactory approach to regulating embryo experimentation. In order to examine the problem I shall define self-regulation, present and appraise the self-regulation structure in Australia and analyse the practical and theoretical arguments that surround it. Although the focus is on Australia, the issues to be examined are universal.

Before proceeding, a few broad observations need to be made. Although the predominant issue is human embryo experimentation, the self-regulation structure that has evolved in Australia has largely been in the area of human experimentation. It is this general scheme that some seek to extend to the embryo. While this may be a good starting point to assess the record of self-regulation, we need to keep in mind the shifting moral bases that underly human and human embryo experimentation. It is also worth observing that the ethical codes, guidelines and behaviour that form the core of the self-regulation approach revolve around the professional medical practitioner. This relationship should be kept in mind since the issue of embryo experimentation, perhaps more than human experimentation, is outside the doctor–patient relationship and encompasses researchers from other scientific disciplines.

What is self-regulation?

Although one hears of suggestions that embryo research should be left to self-regulation, the meaning of ‘self-regulation’ frequently varies.