The commercial provision of putative stem cell-based medical interventions in the absence of conclusive evidence of safety and efficacy has formed the basis of an unregulated industry for more than a decade. Many clinics offering such supposed stem cell treatments include statements about the ‘ethical’ nature of somatic stem cells, in specific contrast to human embryonic stem cells, which have been the subject of intensive political, legal, and religious controversy since their first derivation (...) in 1998. Christian groups—both Roman Catholic and evangelical Protestant—in many countries have explicitly promoted the medical potential and current-day successes in the clinical application of somatic stem cells, lending indirect support to the activities of businesses marketing stem cells ahead of evidence. In this article, I make a preliminary examination of how the structures and belief systems of certain churches in South Korea and the United States, both of which are home to significant stem cell marketing industries, has complemented other factors, including national biomedical funding initiatives, international economic rivalries, permissive legal structures, which have lent impetus to a problematic and often exploitative sector of biomedical commerce. (shrink)

We report on the deliberations of an interdisciplinary group of experts in science, law, and philosophy who convened to discuss novel ethical and policy challenges in stem cell research. In this report we discuss the ethical and policy implications of safety concerns in the transition from basic laboratory research to clinical applications of cell-based therapies derived from stem cells. Although many features of this transition from lab to clinic are common to other therapies, three aspects (...) of stem cell biology pose unique challenges. First, tension regarding the use of human embryos may complicate the scientific development of safe and effective cell lines. Second, because human stem cells were not developed in the laboratory until 1998, few safety questions relating to human applications have been addressed in animal research. Third, preclinical and clinical testing of biologic agents, particularly those as inherently complex as mammalian cells, present formidable challenges, such as the need to develop suitable standardized assays and the difficulty of selecting appropriate patient populations for early phase trials. We recommend that scientists, policy makers, and the public discuss these issues responsibly, and further, that a national advisory committee to oversee human trials of cell therapies be established. **NB we did not reccommend a NAC, we think it might be appropriate**. (shrink)

Demands for improved access to innovative therapies have prompted a discourse that claims patients have rights to access treatments that may be of benefit, even if evidence that demonstrates safety and efficacy is lacking. This rights-based discourse is grounded in accounts of autonomy and assertions claiming that the state ought to not interfere with the free choices of patients and clinical decision-making. In this essay, we scrutinise these arguments to defend the ethical and legal permissibility of interference in contexts (...) where the uncertainty of benefit and potential for harm creates vulnerabilities that undermine patient capacity for self-determination. In support of this argument, we draw on two theoretical approaches to explore the limits of autonomy in innovative contexts and analyse the legal bases of the rights-based discourse. We then apply this analysis to the case example of stem cell transplantation as an innovative treatment for multiple sclerosis. (shrink)

An exciting development in the field of assisted reproductive technologies is In Vitro Gametogenesis (IVG) that enables production of functional gametes from stem cells in the laboratory. Currently, development of this technology is still at an early stage and has demonstrated to work only in rodents. Upon critically examining the ethical dimensions of various possible IVG applications in human fertility treatment from a Sunni Islamic perspective, together with benefit-harm (maslahah-mafsadah) assessment; it is concluded that utilization of IVG, once its (...) efficacy and safety are guaranteed, could be permissible by strictly adhering to Islamic ethical principles related to marriage, biological/genetic relatedness, sexual intercourse, and moral status of the embryo/fetus versus that of the gamete. As a result, IVG will be acceptable for treating primary infertility, age-related infertility, and preventing genetic diseases. However, it will be unacceptable for application in posthumous reproduction, donor gametes, genetic enhancement, and procreation in same-sex couples. (shrink)

van Gend, David It was to be the "new dawn" of stem cell science, but it was a false dawn. Every year for a decade the press releases of Geron Corp, a stem cell company in the US, reassured investors that their world-first treatment using embryonic stem cells in spinal injury was going to be approved "next year".1 And every year the regulating authority in the US, the FDA, failed to give approval, asking instead for (...) further reassurance about the safety of the trial. Finally, coinciding with the election of President Obama and the prospect of a new, liberated era of embryonic research, the FDA overcame its qualms and gave the go-ahead. (shrink)

The complexities of modern science are not adequately reflected in many bioethical discussions. This is especially problematic in highly contested cases where there is significant pressure to generate clinical applications fast, as in stem cell research. In those cases a more integrated approach to bioethics, which we call systems bioethics, can provide a useful framework to address ethical and policy issues. Much as systems biology brings together different experimental and methodological approaches in an integrative way, systems (...) bioethics integrates aspects of the history and philosophy of science, social and political theory, and normative analysis with the science in question. In this paper we outline how a careful analysis of the science of stem cell research can help to refocus the discussions related to the clinical applications of stem cells. We show how inaccurate or inadequate scientific assumptions help to create a set of unrealistic expectations and badly inform ethical deliberations and policy development. Systems bioethics offers resources for moving beyond the current impasse. (shrink)

If stem cell-based therapies are developed, we will likely confront a difficult problem of justice: for biological reasons alone, the new therapies might benefit only a limited range of patients. In fact, they might benefit primarily white Americans, thereby exacerbating long-standing differences in health and health care.

The research on stem cell-based therapies has greatly expanded in recent years. Our text attempts to seek those religious and ethical challenges that stem cell therapy and research bring into debate. Our thesis is that bioethics can defend its principle without a religious background. We will develop our argumentation on three major points: firstly, a comparison between secular ethics and religious views will clarify why stem cell therapy and research are important from a (...) scientific point of view, addressing the very center of the human being; in our view, being based on secular society, bioethics can answer the challenges of stem cell therapy and research; secondly, following Hans Jonas' perspective on experimenting on humans, we seek to understand the philosophical guidance that sciences dealing with stem cell need; thirdly, we will map the ethical guidelines for clinical translational research that have been adopted by the International Society for Stem Cell Research. . (shrink)

While the clinical promise of much stem cell research remains largely theoretical, patients are nonetheless pursuing unproven stem cell therapies in jurisdictions around the world—a phenomenon referred to as “stem cell tourism.” These treatments are generally advertised on a direct-to-consumer basis via the Internet. Research shows portrayals of stem cell medicine on such websites are overly optimistic and the claims made are unsubstantiated by published evidence. However, anecdotal evidence suggests that parents are (...) pursing these “treatments” for their children, despite potential physical and financial risk. Physicians are in a unique position as they can be expected to be involved in, or privy to, such decisions. In this paper, we consider what duties physicians may have toward minor patients whose parents/guardians wish to engage in stem cell tourism on their behalf. We use the Canadian perspective to address the broadly relevant issues raised by this trend. (shrink)

Stem cell tourism is a small but growing part of the thriving global medical tourism marketplace. Much stem cell research remains at the experimental stage, with clinical trials still uncommon. However, there are over 700 clinics estimated to be operating in mostly developing countries – from Costa Rica and Argentina to China, India and Russia – that have lured many patients, mostly from industrialized countries, driven by desperation and hope, which in turn continue to fuel the (...) growth of such tourism.While much research has focused on such dimensions as the promotions that allow such businesses to make their services known, media coverage, some patient research, and regulatory conditions for developing country clinics, little attention has been paid to the non-affected members of the general population, the future potential users of such services. This empirical study based on five focus group discussions with a diverse group of healthy adults in a Canadian city, explored participant views of patients who use stem cell tourism services, the likelihood they would avail themselves of such services if they were to suffer similar illnesses, and the conditions under which they might do so, and the impact that admonitions and advice from international expert bodies might have on their decisions. Our findings suggest that these healthy adults are sympathetic to the drivers of hope and desperation, and, despite cautions about research limitations, may seek such treatments themselves under similar conditions. These findings are discussed in the context of the policy and ethical issues raised by this form of medical tourism. (shrink)

This essay will address the ethical issues that have emerged in the first considerations of the newly emerging stem cell technology. Many of us in the field of bioethics were deliberating related issues as we first learned of the new science and confronted the ethical issues it raised. In this essay, I will draw on the work of colleagues who were asked to reflect on early stages of the research as the field debated the issues of consent, (...) moral status, use of animal tissues, abortion, use of fetal tissue, and the nature and goals of entrepreneurial research. In this new capacity, ethicists weighed the problem of privacy, the role of justice considerations, and the issues of the marketplace in science. At this point, it is clear that far more issues remain unresolved than are settled, that there is largely unexplored territory ahead, and that the single most important task that faces us as a field is a steady call for ongoing conversation and public debate. (shrink)

This article examines the assertion that human embryonic stem cells patents are immoral because they violate human dignity. After analyzing the concept of human dignity and its role in bioethics debates, this article argues that patents on human embryos or totipotent embryonic stem cells violate human dignity, but that patents on pluripotent or multipotent stem cells do not. Since patents on pluripotent or multipotent stem cells may still threaten human dignity by encouraging people to treat (...) embryos as property, patent agencies should carefully monitor and control these patents to ensure that patents are not inadvertently awarded on embryos or totipotent stem cells. (shrink)

Stem cell tourism is a small but growing part of the thriving global medical tourism marketplace. Much stem cell research remains at the experimental stage, with clinical trials still uncommon. However, there are over 700 clinics estimated to be operating in mostly developing countries – from Costa Rica and Argentina to China, India and Russia – that have lured many patients, mostly from industrialized countries, driven by desperation and hope, which in turn continue to fuel the (...) growth of such tourism.While much research has focused on such dimensions as the promotions that allow such businesses to make their services known, media coverage, some patient research, and regulatory conditions for developing country clinics, little attention has been paid to the non‐affected members of the general population, the future potential users of such services. This empirical study based on five focus group discussions with a diverse group of healthy adults in a Canadian city, explored participant views of patients who use stem cell tourism services, the likelihood they would avail themselves of such services if they were to suffer similar illnesses, and the conditions under which they might do so, and the impact that admonitions and advice from international expert bodies might have on their decisions. Our findings suggest that these healthy adults are sympathetic to the drivers of hope and desperation, and, despite cautions about research limitations, may seek such treatments themselves under similar conditions. These findings are discussed in the context of the policy and ethical issues raised by this form of medical tourism. (shrink)

This overview of 10 years of stem cell controversy reviews the moral conflict that has made ESCs so controversial and how this conflict plays itself out in the legal realm, focusing on the constitutional status of efforts to ban ESC research or ESC-derived therapies. It provides a history of the federal funding debate from the Carter to the Obama administrations, and the importance of the Raab memo in authorizing federal funding for research with privately derived ESCs despite the (...) Dickey-Wicker ban on federal funding of embryo research. It also reviews the role that scientists themselves have played in developing regulations for ESC research, the emergence of ESCROs as special review bodies for ESC research, and the thorough consent requirements for donation of IVF embryos to ESC research. With research now transitioning from the lab to the clinic, the article reviews the challenges of ensuring safety and consent in translational research. It concludes with a call for respecting those persons who have to using or working with ESC products and an account of how obtaining stem cells from a person's own cells will alleviate some but not all of the controversy surrounding ESC research. (shrink)

BackgroundIn 2004, patient advocate groups were major players in helping pass and implement significant public policy and funding initiatives in stem cells and regenerative medicine. In the following years, advocates were also actively engaged in Washington DC, encouraging policy makers to broaden embryonic stem cell research funding, which was ultimately passed after President Barack Obama came into office. Many advocates did this because they were told stem cell research would lead to cures. After waiting more (...) than 10 years, many of these same patients are now approaching clinics around the world offering experimental stem cell-based interventions instead of waiting for scientists in the US to complete clinical trials. How did the same groups who were once the strongest supporters of stem cell research become stem cell tourists? And how can scientists, clinicians, and regulators work to bring stem cell patients back home to the US and into the clinical trial process?DiscussionIn this paper, we argue that the continued marketing and use of experimental stem cell-based interventions is problematic and unsustainable. Central problems include the lack of patient protection, US liability standards, regulation of clinical sites, and clinician licensing. These interventions have insufficient evidence of safety and efficacy; patients may be wasting money and time, and they may be forgoing other opportunities for an intervention that has not been shown to be safe and effective. Current practices do not contribute to scientific progress because the data from the procedures are unsuitable for follow-up research to measure outcomes. In addition, there is no assurance for patients that they are receiving the interventions promised or of what dosage they are receiving. Furthermore, there is inconsistent or non-existent follow-up care. Public policy should be developed to correct the current situation.ConclusionThe current landscape of stem cell tourism should prompt a re-evaluation of current approaches to study cell-based interventions with respect to the design, initiation, and conduct of US clinical trials. Stakeholders, including scientists, clinicians, regulators and patient advocates, need to work together to find a compromise to keep patients in the US and within the clinical trial process. Using HIV/AIDS and breast cancer advocate cases as examples, we identify key priorities and goals for this policy effort. (shrink)

This paper explores the notions of hope and how individual patient autonomy can trump carefully reasoned ethical concerns and policies intended to regulate stem cell transplants. We argue that the same limits of knowledge that inform arguments to restrain and regulate unproven treatments might also undermine our ability to comprehensively dismiss or condemn them. Incautiously or indiscriminately reasoned policies and attitudes may drive critical information and data underground, impel patients away from working with clinical researchers, and tread needlessly (...) on hope, the essential motivator of patients, advocates and researchers alike. We offer recommendations to clinicians and health care providers to help balance the discourse with individuals seeking treatment while guarding against fraud, misconception, and patient harm. (shrink)

This paper explores the notions of hope and how individual patient autonomy can trump carefully reasoned ethical concerns and policies intended to regulate stem cell transplants. We argue that the same limits of knowledge that inform arguments to restrain and regulate unproven treatments might also undermine our ability to comprehensively dismiss or condemn them. Incautiously or indiscriminately reasoned policies and attitudes may drive critical information and data underground, impel patients away from working with clinical researchers, and tread needlessly (...) on hope, the essential motivator of patients, advocates and researchers alike. We offer recommendations to clinicians and health care providers to help balance the discourse with individuals seeking treatment while guarding against fraud, misconception, and patient harm. (shrink)

There are many kinds of clinical trials. The regulatory framework within which most drug development takes place appears to be the one that is to be applied to the development of novel stem cell-based clinical trials. In the standard drug development model, appropriate pre-clinical research is conducted, and investigators or research sponsors submit an investigational new drug application to the Food and Drug Administration.If approved, typical clinical trials start with Phase I, which is usually a trial to determine (...) the maximum tolerable dose of a drug. Phase I trials are often referred to as “safety studies” because the primary goal of Phase I research is to determine if an intervention is safe. (shrink)

The global development of human embryonic stem cell science and its therapeutic applications are dependent on the nature of its engagement at national and international levels with key cultural values and beliefs concerning the moral status of the early human embryo. This article argues that the political need to reconcile the promise of new health technologies with the cultural costs of scientific advance, dependent in this case on the use of the human embryo, has been met by the (...) evolution of bioethics as a political community, transnational network, and bureaucratic device. Bioethics has become the political means for the creation of a global moral economy where the trading and exchange of values is normalized and legitimated. As a result of such trading, value compromises are produced capable of legitimizing the regulatory policies necessary for maintaining public trust in the new science. (shrink)

This essay will address the ethical issues that have emerged in the first considerations of the newly emerging stem cell technology. Many of us in the field of bioethics were deliberating related issues as we first learned of the new science and confronted the ethical issues it raised. In this essay, I will draw on the work of colleagues who were asked to reflect on early stages of the research (members of the IRBs, the Geron Ethicist Advisory (...) Board, and the National Bioethics Advisory Commission) as the field debated the issues of consent, moral status, use of animal tissues, abortion, use of fetal tissue, and the nature and goals of entrepreneurial research. In this new capacity, ethicists weighed the problem of privacy, the role of justice considerations, and the issues of the marketplace in science. At this point, it is clear that far more issues remain unresolved than are settled, that there is largely unexplored territory ahead, and that the single most important task that faces us as a field is a steady call for ongoing conversation and public debate. (shrink)

I argue that embryonic stem cell research is fair to the embryo, even on the assumption that the embryo has attained full personhood and an attendant right to life at conception. This is because the only feasible alternatives open to the embryo are to exist briefly in an unconscious state and be killed or to not exist at all. Hence, one is neither depriving the embryo of an enduring life it would otherwise have had nor is one causing (...) the embryo pain. I also argue that a rational agent in a situation relevantly similar to that of the embryo would consent to such research, and I use this insight to ground two justice-based arguments in favor of this research. (shrink)

The possibility of obtaining stem cells from human embryos has given rise to an intensive legal and ethical debate. In this paper, attention is paid to the normative disparity and ambiguity in Europe. An argument for the need for a minimal legal harmonization is made; and a prudent and flexible way to reach this successfully is suggested. Establishing a common legal framework seems to be the only way to guarantee true competitiveness for the European scientific community.

This article examines a moral problem for the blastocyst transfer method of harvesting stem cells from embryos. Although BTM does not result in the destruction of an embryo, this article suggests that BTM nevertheless faces difficulty because it poses a threat to the autonomy of the embryo.

The paper looks in detail at patients that were treated at one of the most discussed companies operating in the field of untried stem cell treatments, Beike Biotech of Shenzhen, China. Our data show that patients who had been treated at Beike Biotech view themselves as proactively pursuing treatment choices that are not available in their home countries. These patients typically come from a broad variety of countries: China, the United Kingdom, the United States, South Africa and Australia. (...) Among the patients we interviewed there seemed to be both an awareness of the general risks involved in such experimental treatments and a readiness to accept those risks weighed against the possible benefits. We interpret this evidence as possibly reflecting the emergence of risk-taking patients as ‘consumers’ of medical options as well as the drive of patients to seek treatment options in the global arena, rather than being hindered by the ethical and regulatory constraints of their home countries. Further, we found that these patients tend to operate in more or less stable networks and groups in which they interact and cooperate closely and develop opinions and assessments of available treatment options for their ailments. These patients also perform a multiple role as patients, research subjects, and research funders because they are required to pay their way into treatment and research activities. This new social dynamics of patienthood has important implications for the ethical governance of stem cell treatments. (shrink)

In the last decades, scientific developments are largely discussed and debated mainly at the media level. Based on the agenda setting model, the importance of a certain theme is given by the frequency of its appearances in mass-media. Within this context, this paper focuses on the issue of stem cells and its media coverage in Romania. Using content analysis of the most read national newspapers, the research aims to emphasize two relevant aspects: the stem cells issue is only (...) partly visible in the written media and the debate between ethics and science is rather non-existent. (shrink)

Regulation of stem cell research in Europe should not take place without public and scholarly inputThe European Union has, at present, no jurisdiction over research carried out in the member states, or concerning the “ethics” of member states. This does not, however, mean that decisions made by the European institutions cannot influence such matters greatly.There has recently been a lot of focus on the decision not to fund embryonic stem cell research during the first year of (...) the 6th framework programme , but behind the scenes a much more important and wide ranging set of regulations are being prepared.The European Commission has prepared a draft directive on setting standards of quality and safety for the donation, procurement, testing, processing, storage, and distribution of human tissues and cells.1 The purpose of this directive was originally to “ensure the quality and safety of human tissues and cells for clinical use” in the EU. This is clearly a laudable objective, fully in line with the EU’s jurisdiction in consumer protection and public health.During the intricate processes of political …. (shrink)

We examine whether the current regulatory regime instituted in South Korea and the United States would have prevented Hwang’s potential transgressions in oocyte procurement for somatic cell nuclear transfer, we compare the general aspects and oversight framework of the Bioethics and Biosafety Act in South Korea and the US National Academies’ Guidelines for Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research, and apply the relevant provisions and recommendations to each transgression. We conclude that the Act would institute centralized oversight (...) under governmental auspices while the Guidelines recommend politically-independent, decentralized oversight bodies including a special review body for human embryonic stem cell research at an institutional level and that the Guidelines would have provided more vigorous protection for the women who had undergone oocyte procurement for Hwang’s research than the Act. We also suggest additional regulations to protect those who provide oocytes for research in South Korea. (shrink)

The possibility of obtaining stem cells from human embryos has given rise to an intensive legal and ethical debate. In this paper, attention is paid to the normative disparity and ambiguity in Europe. An argument for the need for a minimal legal harmonization is made; and a prudent and flexible way to reach this successfully is suggested. Establishing a common legal framework seems to be the only way to guarantee true competitiveness for the European scientific community.

Clinics and hospitals around the globe are offering stem cell treatments to persons with serious conditions for whom no effective therapies are available in their home countries. Many of these treatments, which are touted as cures for such conditions as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's Diseases, multiple sclerosis, and spinal cord injuries, have not gone through clinical trials that establish their safety and efficacy. Indeed, it is unclear whether some of them even utilize stem cells. State regulation of (...) these therapies tends to be weak or nonexistent in some of the countries in which they are offered. This puts those who believe they must travel abroad for stem cell treatments at risk of injury from procedures that .. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 14.1 (2004) 97-114 [Access article in PDF] Stem Cell Research in the U.S. after the President's Speech of August 2001 Cynthia B. Cohen On 9 August 2001, in a nationally televised speech, President Bush addressed the contentious question of whether to provide federal funds for human embryonic stem cell research (White House 2001).1 This research involves taking the primordial cells (...) found in embryos and transforming them into certain specialized cells, such as those of the heart, nerves, and muscles, with the ultimate goal of transferring these cells into patients to repair damaged cells and tissues. In his remarks, the President authorized funding for research only on stem cells already harvested from remaining embryos at in vitro fertilization (IVF) centers as of 9 August 2001, the date of the speech. In a "Fact Sheet" about embryonic stem cell research, he added the ethical requirements that (1) the donors of embryos gave informed consent to the derivation of stem cells from their embryos, (2) the embryos were created solely for reproductive purposes, and (3) no financial inducements were given to the embryo donors. The President also prohibited federally funded research on embryonic stem cells derived from embryos after 9 August 2001, as well as the creation of embryos for research purposes and the cloning of human embryos for both reproductive and research purposes. He did not seek to ban the pursuit of embryonic stem cell research with private funds. "This allows us to explore the promise and potential of stem-cell research without crossing a fundamental moral line by providing taxpayer funding that would sanction or encourage further destruction of embryos," the President stated (White House 2001).The President's speech stirred intense controversy. Many applauded the new policy because it allowed some embryonic stem cell research to proceed, thereby raising hope that treatments might be developed for those suffering from such conditions as Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, and diabetes. Others supported it on grounds that it would discourage the future destruction of embryos in stem cell research. They maintained that although it was wrong to have derived stem cells from embryos, this wrong was no longer remediable and it therefore was justifiable to allow research using such embryos to proceed. Some, however, objected to the new policy because they held that it unduly limited the [End Page 97] number of embryonic stem cells available for federally funded research. Still others opposed it on grounds that it made the federal government complicit in what they took to be the wrongful destruction of human embryos that had taken place prior to 9 August 2001. The President established the President's Council on Bioethics by executive order in November 2001 and charged it, among other tasks, with monitoring stem cell research and recommending guidelines and regulations for biomedical innovations.Questions about the moral status of human embryos have so captured public attention since the President issued his remarks that other significant ethical and policy issues raised about stem cell research inside the Beltway have remained in the shadows. A number of individuals and organizations—legislators, scientists, patient groups, the President's Council on Bioethics, ethicists, religious task forces, and social commentators—have attempted to bring these other issues to legislative and public attention. They also have revisited the more publicly prominent question of what sorts of protections we owe to human embryos. In response, Congress has attempted to address several of these newly emerging issues at hearings and in legislation. I review these efforts, consider developing issues and arguments, and conclude by exploring possible future directions for federal and private sector stem cell policy. The Availability of Embryonic Stem Cell Lines to Federally Funded Researchers President Bush, in developing his stem cell research policy, accepted a distinction between the "derivation" and the "use" of embryos enunciated by the General Counsel of the Department of Health and Human Services toward the end of the Clinton administration. This distinction was adopted to avoid contravening the Dickey-Wicker Amendment (added... (shrink)

In 2001, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the "Human Cloning Prohibition Act" and President Bush announced his decision to allow only limited research on existing stem cell lines but not on "embryos." In contrast, the U.K. has explicitly authorized "therapeutic cloning." Much more will be said about bioethical, legal, and social implications, but subtleties of the science and careful definitions of terms have received much less consideration. Legislators and reporters struggle to discuss "cloning," "pluripotency," "stem cells," (...) and "embryos," and whether "adult" are preferable to "embryonic" stem cells as research subjects. They profess to abhor "copying humans" or "killing embryos." Do they know what they are talking about? Do we? This paper explores the historical, philosophical, and scientific contexts that inform this heated discussion. (shrink)

In this chapter, I review some of the background thinking concerning matters of moral status that I had developed in previous years and that I would now bring to the work of the Human Embryo Research Panel. Two ideas were at the forefront of my thinking. First, that biology usually offers not decisive "events" but only continuous processes of development. Second, in making status determinations we do not so much "identify" a point on a developmental continuum where moral respect should (...) be accorded as "choose" that point. These choices are "balancing decisions" in which the community of moral agents weighs its interests in protecting an entity against the burdens of doing so. After illustrating these two contentions, I consider some of the reasons why thinkers on the "right" and "left" of our bioethics debates have resisted or missed this basic insight. (shrink)

In 2001, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the "Human Cloning Prohibition Act" and President Bush announced his decision to allow only limited research on existing stem cell lines but not on "embryos." In contrast, the U.K. has explicitly authorized "therapeutic cloning." Much more will be said about bioethical, legal, and social implications, but subtleties of the science and careful definitions of terms have received much less consideration. Legislators and reporters struggle to discuss "cloning," "pluripotency," "stem cells," (...) and "embryos," and whether "adult" are preferable to "embryonic" stem cells as research subjects. They profess to abhor "copying humans" or "killing embryos." Do they know what they are talking about? Do we? This paper explores the historical, philosophical, and scientific contexts that inform this heated discussion. (shrink)

This paper is based on linked qualitative studies of the donation of human embryos to stem cell research carried out in the United Kingdom, Switzerland, and China. All three studies used semi-structured interview protocols to allow an in-depth examination of donors’ and non-donors’ rationales for their donation decisions, with the aim of gaining information on contextual and other factors that play a role in donor decisions and identifying how these relate to factors that are more usually included in (...) evaluations made by theoretical ethics. Our findings have implications for one factor that has previously been suggested as being of ethical concern: the role of gratitude. Our empirical work shows no evidence that interpersonal gratitude is an important factor, but it does support the existence of a solidarity-based desire to “give something back” to medical research. Thus, we use empirical data to expand and refine the conceptual basis of bioethically theorizing the IVF–stem cell interface. (shrink)

The potential benefits of embryonic stem cell research have been clarified by the last ten years of research so that it is necessary to re-examine the foundations for the restrictions imposed on this research. Those who believe that life begins at the moment of fertilization and is imbued with a full complement of human rights have opposed all embryonic research. As one who accepts this premise, I will demonstrate that there are certain limited circumstances in which parents may (...) donate embryos to establish stem cell lines that fully respect the rights of the embryonic person. In these circumstances, their action is morally equivalent to organ donation from a dying child to save the lives of others. (shrink)

Many Christian scholars, if not all of them, consider Genesis to be foundational texts of the Bible and the spring for all the other doctrines of the Scripture. Therefore, I'm considering the attempt to search and find arguments for cell therapy ethical issues in the fundamental text of Genesis as a challenging and educative task. Moreover, this could be the first step in analyzing the relationships between Christian religions and bioethics, in terms of finding reasonable decisions for ethical (...) challenges, raised by the current biomedical research. As for many other dilemmas of humanity, we have to recall the text of Genesis for analyzing the goodness or evilness of our actions in translational medicine, even though that is not the only way to get a reasonable ethical decision. My contribution is an essay that is trying to correlate the Genesis lessons with the needed arguments in deciding what could be good and what could be evil in the stem cell research, according to the religious convictions. The biggest challenges of biomedical research for Christian religions were due to the human cloning issue, made possible by the somatic cell nuclear transfer, but those challenges update the older debates on birth control pill, technologically assisted reproduction, or gene therapy. Issues related to in vitro fertilization, gene enhancement and gene therapy, human cell cloning, embryonic stem cell using, and chimera cell obtaining for research are being considered and related to the putative arguments extracted from the book of Genesis, describing the origins. As a matter of fact, I may conclude that the single way to reach a reasonable ethical decision in our society is to intersect ethics, science and theology and to engage large debates involving scientists, theologians, civil society representatives, ethicists (experts in applied ethics) and moral philosophers, having the two latest professionals as referees. (shrink)

ABSTRACT This paper examines three arguments that use the concept of potential to identify embryos that are morally suitable for embryonic stem cell research (ESCR). According to the first argument, due to Ronald Green, the fact that they are scheduled for disposal makes embryos left over from IVF treatments morally appropriate for research. Paul McHugh argues that embryos created by somatic cell nuclear transfer differ from those that result directly from the meeting of sperm and egg in (...) having potential especially conducive to the therapeutic use of their stem cells. I reject both of these arguments. According to the way of making distinctions in embryonic potential that I defend, it is the absence of a functional relationship with a womb that marks embryos morally suitable for ESCR. (shrink)

Pike, Gregory K The various levels at which misunderstanding exist with regards to stem cell research are discussed. The mismatch that exists between public perception and reality with regards to the same is highlighted.

Stem cell research is very promising. The use of human embryos has been confronted with objections based on ethical and religious positions. The recent production of reprogrammed adult (induced pluripotent) cells does not – in the opinion of scientists – reduce the need to continue human embryonic stem cell research. So the debate continues.Islam always encouraged scientific research, particularly research directed toward finding cures for human disease. Based on the expectation of potential benefits, Islamic teachings permit (...) and support human embryonic stem cell research. The majority of Muslim scholars also support therapeutic cloning. This permissibility is conditional on the use of supernumerary early pre-embryos which are obtained during infertility treatment in vitro fertilization (IVF) clinics. The early pre-embryos are considered in Islamic jurisprudence as worthy of respect but do not have the full sanctity offered to the embryo after implantation in the uterus and especially after ensoulment.In this paper the Islamic positions regarding human embryonic stem cell research and therapeutic cloning are reviewed in some detail, whereas positions in other religious traditions are mentioned only briefly.The status of human embryonic stem cell research and therapeutic cloning in different countries, including the USA and especially in Muslim countries, is discussed. (shrink)