A survey of 313 members of the general public has found that a majority support the creation of new human fetal and embryological collections, but only when the remains are obtained with informed consent. The cross-sectional study, published in BMC Medical Ethics, is, according to its authors, the first to examine how the wider public, rather than educators or medical professionals, views repositories containing whole fetal and embryo remains. More than half of the participants, 56.5 percent (n = 177), agreed that new collections should be established with donated remains accompanied by consent, while 46.3 percent (n = 145) said donations should be accepted from both the maternal and paternal genetic contributors.
Human fetal and embryological collections are defined as repositories containing whole fetal and embryo remains, and they have long served as resources for education and research in anatomy, embryology, and developmental biology. Such remains can be prosected for teaching, chemically preserved, or plastinated, a technique in which bodily fluids and fat are replaced with a curable polymer, preventing decay and allowing specimens to be handled. The study’s authors, Joyce El-Haddad and Nalini Pather, argue that the central ethical challenge facing these collections is the lack of informed consent, which they say violates autonomy, disregards cultural sensitivities, and reflects historical injustices.
The historical backdrop is significant. The nineteenth century saw a major expansion of these collections, driven by scientific advancement, the institutionalization of hospital-based medicine, and growing interest in congenital anomalies. Yet the rise of molecular biology, digital imaging, and three-dimensional modeling has diminished their traditional role, and many collections have been deprioritized because curation is resource-intensive. A key problem is that most collections worldwide have unclear provenance, largely because many were assembled before informed consent protocols and ethical oversight were widely implemented. Most remains were acquired from spontaneous or elective abortions or surgical procedures and were often classified as medical waste.
To analyze their survey results, the researchers applied two complementary frameworks: Bronfenbrenner’s Bioecological Systems Theory and the International Association for Measurement and Evaluation of Communication framework. Both examine influence across multiple levels, from immediate individual relationships at the micro level, through institutional policies at the meso level, to legislation and regulatory frameworks at the macro level, with Bronfenbrenner’s chronosystem adding a temporal dimension that the authors consider particularly relevant for collections established before modern consent practices existed.
The survey itself was a previously validated instrument delivered via Qualtrics, distributed through Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, and X, and open from late September to the end of December 2023. Eligible participants had to be 18 or older and could not be academics, students, laboratory staff, or professionals in anatomy, medicine, health, or science, ensuring the sample reflected the general public rather than education-focused stakeholders consulted in the team’s earlier 2024 study. The researchers explicitly acknowledge that convenience sampling based on the lead researcher’s social networks risks both sampling and self-selection bias.
The respondents had a mean age of 34.9 years, ranged from 18 to 80, and were predominantly women (74.4 percent). Most lived in Australia (57.5 percent) or the United States (23.3 percent), and half identified as secular or non-religious. Statistical analysis revealed that perceptions of the value of new collections differed significantly by gender (p = 0.023), religious affiliation (p < 0.001), and organ donor status (p = 0.001). Women were more likely to support establishing new collections, at 68.7 percent, and registered organ donors were even more supportive, at 80.2 percent, a pattern the authors link to existing literature connecting donation awareness and advocacy with positive attitudes toward medical research.
On the question of archival material, opinion was markedly divided. Among the 78.0 percent of participants who responded on the appropriate disposition of remains obtained before the era of informed consent, 30.4 percent disagreed with their continued use, 24.0 percent agreed, and 23.7 percent were unsure, with the largest single group overall either undecided or not responding. A separate finding concerned digital reproductions: when asked about sharing digital copies of specimens among institutions, only 51 participants responded, and of those, 76.5 percent disagreed with such sharing.
On informed consent itself, women, participants without a history of pregnancy, and organ donors were more likely to agree that new collections should be established with consent. The authors suggest that participants without pregnancy experience may emphasize consent because they perceive pregnancy and reproductive choices as symbolic of personal agency, potentially shaped by media narratives rather than lived experience, though they caution that the extent of such influence cannot be determined from these findings alone. The preference for involving both biological parents may, they propose, reflect evolving household and gender dynamics and growing support for fathers playing larger roles in childcare.
The study’s limitations are clearly stated. The sample overrepresents Australian and Western participants, the cross-sectional design cannot capture how attitudes change over time, and social media distribution likely introduced selection bias, since people with a vested interest in the topic were more likely to complete the survey. The authors also note that the results cannot determine how perceptions have evolved, and they call for mixed-methods approaches, including longitudinal surveys and focus groups with diverse participants, as well as consultation with policymakers when creating evidence-based guidelines.
The overarching conclusion is one of discomfort toward collections assembled without informed consent, a sentiment the authors argue should be considered at the chrono, macro, meso, and micro ethical levels. They recommend that any future frameworks governing these collections be codesigned with relevant communities, and they point to historical precedents, including the Havasupai Tribe genetics case, to underline the costs of failing to consult.
Subject of Research: Public perceptions of informed consent in human fetal and embryological collections
Article Title: Ethical analysis of the public’s perception towards human fetal and embryological collections
Article References: El-Haddad, J., & Pather, N. (2026). Ethical analysis of the public’s perception towards human fetal and embryological collections. BMC Medical Ethics, 27(1), Article 220. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-026-01620-2
Image Credits: AI Generated
DOI: 10.1186/s12910-026-01620-2
Keywords: informed consent, human fetal collections, embryological collections, medical ethics, public perception, cross-sectional survey, anatomy, organ donation, bioethics, donation ethics, Ethical, analysis
News Source: Courtney Benton. (October 29, 2026). Public Survey Reveals Strong Support for Consent-Based Human Fetal Collections. Scienmag.
