80 Years After Nuremberg Trials, Doctors Still Commit Atrocities

The 80th anniversary of the Nuremberg Trials is a powerful moment to reflect on the horrors of unchecked human experimentation during World War II. This milestone reminds us of the atrocities that produced the 1947 Nuremberg Code, a cornerstone of medical ethics emphasizing informed consent, minimal risk, and the prohibition of exploiting vulnerable human beings. The code, a voluntary international guideline, prioritizes the physical and mental safety of all human subjects over any “greater good” for society.

Yet, as we reflect on this legacy, a glaring flaw in U.S. regulations demands scrutiny: the outdated, scientifically inaccurate definitions in 45 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 46, the federal policy for the protection of human subjects in research supported or conducted by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). It’s time to finally align this decades-old law with objective biological facts from human embryology.

Beyond baseline protections, 45 CFR 46 provides additional safeguards for vulnerable populations, specifically governing research on pregnant women, human fetuses, and neonates. But here’s the rub: Subpart B also contains two false definitions of fundamental terms about the human being and omits, essentially erasing, an entire stage of human development.

HHS regulations misdefine “fetus” as the “product of conception from implantation until delivery” and “pregnancy” as “the period of time from implantation until delivery.” Shockingly, despite the fact that the first stage of human development is the embryonic period, when all major organs, body systems, and distinct human features begin to form (making it the most critical and vulnerable phase), 45 CFR 46 does not define the human “embryo” at all.

This matters profoundly. HHS is a science-focused organization, and human subjects research protections should, at a minimum, incorporate scientifically accurate definitions of the human being. Experts in human embryology (the science that specializes in the study of the human embryo and fetus) know the correct terms, and HHS should adopt them. Ethical research demands scientific accuracy as its foundation; ignoring it renders experiments invalid, meaningless, and unethical. Moreover, “delayed personhood” arguments, built on false embryology, justify reduced status for the unborn, distorting how we define “human subjects” and apply protections. These fabrications create a “pre-person” category with limited rights, enabling unregulated experimentation. Who else might be redefined as “non-persons” for research? Vulnerable adults could face experimentation without consent, echoing the very abuses Nuremberg condemned.

Rooted in 1970s political compromises, not biology, these definitions ignore established facts. Scientists know that prenatal life consists of two phases: the embryonic and fetal periods. The Carnegie Stages of Human Embryonic Development — the gold standard of human embryological research — cover the 23 stages of development of the early human being during the embryonic period, which begins at fertilization and continues through eight weeks. The Carnegie Stages codify that in sexual reproduction, a new, whole, living, individual human being (a human embryo) begins to exist at fertilization, not implantation. Carnegie Stage 1 documents fertilization. Ronan O’Rahilly, one of the world’s authorities on human embryology, states it simply: “Prenatal age begins at fertilization, postnatal age at birth.”

Human embryologists affirm that the term “embryo” refers to the human being during the first eight weeks of development, “fetus” applies from nine weeks through birth, and, scientifically, “pregnancy” normally encompasses the time from fertilization (in the fallopian tube) until birth.  In fact, within hours after fertilization begins, pregnancy can be confirmed by detecting a hormone called “early pregnancy factor” or EPF in the mother’s blood. There is no “pre-person” or “pre-pregnancy.” Moreover, human reproduction also initiates the continuum of human life, with the new human being remaining the same individual throughout the embryonic, fetal, and postnatal stages. Simply put, the human being and the person are inseparable.

The consequences are far-reaching. In human embryonic research, erroneous definitions permit creating and destroying human embryos for experimentation, often indirectly federally funded via loopholes. Consider the millions of human embryos frozen in IVF facilities, many discarded or donated to labs. Accurate definitions would extend protections, curbing destruction, and promoting nonlethal alternatives.

Take FDA labeling for abortifacients, by misdefining pregnancy from implantation, drugs like Plan B, which can prevent implantation of an existing human organism, are marketed as “contraceptives,” not abortifacients. Updating 45 CFR 46 would demand transparent labels, empowering women with accurate information for informed consent and aligning regulations with biology. This isn’t about banning contraception; it’s about scientific facts and ethics.

Stem cell research highlights other benefits of using the correct science. Destructive embryonic methods have yielded no therapies (i.e, there are no FDA-approved cell-based therapies using embryonic stem cells). Adult stem cells, however, have already treated more than 2 million people for leukemia, multiple sclerosis, sickle cell disease, and more, while induced pluripotent stem cells are now laboratory standards and have begun moving into the clinic. Redirecting efforts advances ethical innovation. And even if destructive paths proved superior, the ends don’t justify the fake, dehumanizing means.

Regardless of views on abortion, IVF, and human embryo and fetal research, perpetuating false definitions yields malformed consent, invalid science, and eroded trust, mirroring the dehumanization that enabled Nazi experiments on the “subhuman.” Federal rules must lead with clarity, reflecting biological reality over agendas that favor pharmaceutical companies, destructive research, or convenience. This is an easy and obvious fix. It’s time for HHS to embrace accurate definitions of human embryo, fetus, and pregnancy. 

Brooke Stanton is the co-author of “The First 56 Days of You: How Your Human Journey Begins” and the chief executive officer of Contend Projects, a registered 501(c)(3) education organization spreading the basic, accurate scientific facts about when a human life starts and the biological science of human embryology.