Embryonic stem cell patents and human dignity

Is Dignity Still Necessary in Health Care? From Definition to Recognition of Human Dignity

The concept of dignity is not, as some scholars claim, an unnecessary moral idea, and nor need it have religious overtones or be characterised by speciesism. In this article, I try to show that dignity can be defined and recognised. The starting point for the argumentation is the four typologies of dignity, which show that the term 'dignity' can denote significantly different concepts, and that the different concepts of dignity can have significantly different ontological senses. A unified typology of dignity allows for five categories to be distinguished: inherent dignity, dignity based on changeable qualities, moral dignity, bestowed dignity and comportment dignity. I take the first two categories of dignity as the object of the analysis, with which I seek to formulate a philosophical response to the charge of speciesism and to show on what basis it can be maintained that all human beings possess dignity. To this end, I distinguish between existential dignity, actual dignity, and potential dignity. Distinguishing these types of dignity becomes possible in the light of Aquinas' and Aristotle's views. In the final section, I point to two ways of recognising dignity. The first is based on certain narratives and emotional states ('ecumenical model of dignity'), while the second is related to a specific moral experience developed within ethical personalism.

Will CRISPR Germline Engineering Close the Door to an Open Future?

The bioethical principle of autonomy is problematic regarding the future of the embryo who lacks the ability to self-advocate but will develop this defining human capacity in time. Recent experiments explore the use of clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR)/Cas9 for germline engineering in the embryo, which alters future generations. The embryo's inability to express an autonomous decision is an obvious bioethical challenge of germline engineering. The philosopher Joel Feinberg acknowledged that autonomy is developing in children. He advocated that to reserve this future autonomy, parents should be guided to make ethical decisions that provide children with open futures. Here, Feinberg's 1980 open future theory is extended to the human embryo in the context of CRISPR germline engineering. Although the embryo does not possess the autonomous decision-making capacity at the time of germline engineering, the parental decision to permanently change the unique genetic fabric of the embryo and subsequent generations disregards future autonomy. Therefore, germline engineering in many instances is objectionable considering Feinberg's open future theory.

Organs, embryos, and part-human chimeras: further applications of the social account of dignity

In their recent paper in this journal, Zümrüt Alpinar-Şencan and colleagues review existing dignity-based objections to organ markets and outline a new form of dignity-based objection they believe has more merit: one grounded in a social account of dignity. This commentary clarifies some aspects of the social account of dignity and then shows how this revised account can be applied to other perennial issues in bioethics, including the ethics of human embryo research and the ethics of creating part-human chimeras.

Research integrity in China: problems and prospects

In little more than 30 years, China has recovered from the intellectual stagnation brought about by the Cultural Revolution to become a global leader in science and technology. Like other leading countries in science and technology, China has encountered some ethical problems related to the conduct of research. China's leaders have taken some steps to respond to these problems, such as developing ethics policies and establishing oversight committees. To keep moving forward, China needs to continue to take effective action to promote research integrity. Some of the challenges China faces include additional policy development, promoting education in responsible conduct of research, protecting whistle-blowers, and cultivating an ethical research environment.

Patents on Technologies of Human Tissue and Organ Regeneration from Pluripotent Human Embryonic Stem Cells

Human embryonic stem cells (hESCs) are genetically stable with unlimited expansion ability and unrestricted plasticity, proffering a pluripotent reservoir for in vitro derivation of a large supply of disease-targeted human somatic cells that are restricted to the lineage in need of repair. There is a large healthcare need to develop hESC-based therapeutic solutions to provide optimal regeneration and reconstruction treatment options for the damaged or lost tissue or organ that have been lacking. In spite of controversy surrounding the ownership of hESCs, the number of patent applications related to hESCs is growing rapidly. This review gives an overview of different patent applications on technologies of derivation, maintenance, differentiation, and manipulation of hESCs for therapies. Many of the published patent applications have been based on previously established methods in the animal systems and multi-lineage inclination of pluripotent cells through spontaneous germ-layer differentiation. Innovative human stem cell technologies that are safe and effective for human tissue and organ regeneration in the clinical setting remain to be developed. Our overall view on the current patent situation of hESC technologies suggests a trend towards hESC patent filings on novel therapeutic strategies of direct control and modulation of hESC pluripotent fate, particularly in a 3-dimensional context, when deriving clinically-relevant lineages for regenerative therapies.

Patenting human pluripotent cells: balancing commercial, academic and ethical interests

The article addresses the issue of the ethics of patenting in human embryonic stem (hES) cells. The current stance of the European Patent Office in citing moral objections to patents on hES cells and the monopolistic scope of the Wisconsin Research Alumni Fund/Geron patents granted by the United States Patent and Trademark Office represent twin obstacles to achieving an ethical balance in patent rights in this field. The particular issues and strategies around granting patents on hES cells can be better understood by placing them in the context of the biotechnology industry and its role in the global bioeconomy. Some possible avenues of redress are considered based on the potential to open up cell pluripotency as new terrain for intellectual property offered by new technological breakthroughs such as induced pluripotent cells. Any changes in patent law should be accompanied by increased collaboration through devices such as patent pools.

Patents, commercialization and the Canadian stem cell research community

Aims: There has been a great deal of discussion in relevant literature on the adverse impact of commercialization agendas and the patenting regime on research in emerging fields. We sought to assess the perceived impact of these factors on the stem cell research community in Canada. Materials & methods: We surveyed 283 researchers from Canada’s Stem Cell Network using a survey instrument informed by relevant literature and systematic consultations with Canadian and international regulators, stem cell researchers and research ethics experts designed to identify pressing ethical, legal and social issues relevant to stem cell research. A total of 108 researchers responded to the survey. Results & conclusions: Results indicate that although many researchers believe that patents may have adverse effects on research, very few have encountered any such effects in practice. The researchers admitted to withholding data to protect patenting opportunities, while also maintaining that patents did not contribute to publication delays. The pressure to commercialize their research was largely held to be reasonable by researchers.