The variability of judicial decisions in the stem cell industry in China

As China's stem cell industry continues to develop, increasing disputes concerning stem cell-based interventions have been brought before the courts. Nonetheless, there is variability in the courts' understanding and attitude toward the regulatory attributes of these interventions, which to some extent has multifaceted impacts on the stem cell field.

Rethink the patentability of human embryonic stem cell research findings: Relaxation based on benefit weighing

Attitudes toward the patentability of the human embryonic stem cell (hESC) research findings are undergoing dynamic adjustment based on benefit weighing. In the early stage, ethical concerns prevailed: both the United States and China placed restrictions to some extent. As the science and technologies advance, the original balance has been broken. With a series of precedents and policies, the United States relaxes the conditions on hESCs. In this regard, China has established several rules mainly through patent examination practices. These rules are finally reflected in China's revised Guidelines for Patent Examination in 2020, which clearly defines the shift in China's stance.

The ethics of human-embryoids model: a call for consistency

In this article, we discuss the ethics of human embryoids, i.e., embryo-like structures made from pluripotent stem cells for modeling natural embryos. We argue that defining our social priorities is critical to design a consistent ethical guideline for research on those new entities. The absence of clear regulations on these emerging technologies stems from an unresolved debate surrounding natural human embryo research and one common opinion that one needs to solve the question of the moral status of the human embryo before regulating their surrogate. The recent NIH funding restrictions for research on human embryoids have made scientists even more unlikely to raise their voices. As a result, the scientific community has maintained a low profile while longing for a more favorable socio-political climate for their research. This article is a call for consistency among biomedical research on human materials, trying to position human embryoids within a spectrum of existing practice from stem cell research or IVF to research involving human subjects. We specifically note that the current practices in infertility clinics of freezing human embryos or disposing of them without any consideration for their potential benefits contradicts the assumption of special consideration for human material. Conversely, creating human embryoids for research purposes could ensure that no human material be used in vain, always serving humankind. We argue here that it is time to reconsider the full ban on embryo research (human embryos and embryoids) beyond the 14-day rule and that research on those entities should obey a sliding scale combining the completeness of the model (e.g., complete vs. partial) and the developmental stage: with more advanced completeness and developmental stage of the considered entity, being associated with more rigorous evaluation of societal benefits, statements of intention, and necessity of such research.

Freedom of Scientific Research and Embryo Protection Under Italian and European Court of Human Rights' Jurisprudence. Brief European Legislation Overview

The paper addresses the issues of admissibility of human embryo research and the legal protection to be recognized, in light of the growing importance that scientific research has been gaining in the clinical and biomedical fields of embryonic stem cells for therapeutic purposes. As for human embryo experimentation, particularly on cryopreserved supernumerary embryos, European legislation varies, since the European Court has granted member States a wide margin of appreciation. Some countries, including Italy, have strict legislation protecting embryos from the fertilisation stage, whereas others have taken permissive approaches, allowing experimentation until 14 days after fertilisation. Science, however, has shown that the 14-day limit can be moved. The author finds it necessary to achieve broad international consensus and shared regulations. Lawmakers, however, need to balance respect for the principle of life, represented by the embryo, against scientific needs, in order to devise sound regulations safeguarding both apparently conflicting fundamental values.

Regulation of Stem Cell Technology in Malaysia: Current Status and Recommendations

Stem cell technology is an emerging science field; it is the unique regenerative ability of the pluripotent stem cell which scientists hope would be effective in treating various medical conditions. While it has gained significant advances in research, it is a sensitive subject involving human embryo destruction and human experimentation, which compel governments worldwide to ensure that the related procedures and experiments are conducted ethically. Based on face-to-face interviews with selected Malaysian ethicists, scientists and policymakers, the objectives and effectiveness of the current Guideline for Stem Cell Research and Therapy (2009) are examined. The study's findings show that the guideline is rather ineffective in ensuring good ethical governance of the technology. A greater extent of unethical conduct is likely present in the private medical clinics or laboratories offering stem cell therapies compared with the public medical institutions providing similar services, as the latter are closely monitored by the governmental agencies enforcing the relevant policies and laws. To address concerns over malpractices or unethical conduct, this paper recommends a comprehensive revision of the current stem cell guideline so that adequate provisions exist to regulate the explicit practices of the private and public stem cell sectors, including false advertising and accountability. The newly revised Malaysian stem cell guideline will align with the Guidelines for Stem Cell Research and Clinical Translation (2016) of the International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR) containing secular but universal moral rules. However, a regulatory policy formulated to govern the technology remains the main thrust of empowering the guideline for compliance among the stakeholders.

Key regulations related to stem cell research

Medicine is an ever-changing science. Stem cell research is nowadays part of the medicine. After developments and trials for decades, in 1988 it was announced that a variety of diseases and injuries would be cured with new stem cell therapy, such as: cancer, diabetes, Parkinson's, spinal cord injuries and many others. After almost 10 years of research in the field, in 2007 other good news and hopes were announced: the possibility to create induced pluripotent stem cells, derived from somatic cells, easily used to establish any disease-specific cell line. And research is going on. In order to find answer to a variety of challenges in this area, a researcher faces the following main question: Which are the legislations and the normative standards to be taken into account when we are supposing to conduct a research on/with stem cells? The purpose of the paper is: (i) to familiarize professionals with the current steps in the evolution of stem cell research; (ii) to provide main legal orientations related to stem cell research; (iii) to indicate limits and explanations on legal regulations related to the research on stem cells.

A Crispr Future for Gene-Editing Regulation: a Proposal for an Updated Biotechnology Regulatory System in an Era of Human Genomic Editing

Recent developments in gene-editing technology have enabled scientists to manipulate the human genome in unprecedented ways. One technology in particular, Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Pallindromic Repeat (CRISPR), has made gene editing more precise and cost-effective than ever before. Indeed, scientists have already shown that CRISPR can eliminate genes linked to life-threatening diseases from an individual's genetic makeup and, when used on human embryos, CRISPR has the potential to permanently eliminate hereditary diseases from the human genome in its entirety. These developments have brought great hope to individuals and their families, who suffer from genetically linked diseases. But there is a dark side: in the wrong hands, CRISPR could negatively impact the course of human evolution or be used to create biological weaponry. Despite these possible consequences, CRISPR remains largely unregulated due to the United States's outdated regulatory scheme for biotechnology. Moreover, human embryo research, which is likely critical to maximizing the therapeutic applications of CRISPR, is not easily undertaken by scientists due to a number of federal and state restrictions aimed at preventing such research. This Note examines the possible benefits and consequences of CRISPR and discusses the current regulations in both the fields of biotechnology and human embryo research that hamper the government's ability to effectively regulate this technology. Ultimately, this Note proposes a new regulatory scheme for biotechnology that focuses on the processes used to create products using CRISPR, rather than the products themselves, with a focus on enabling ethical research using human embryos to maximize the potential benefits of CRISPR.

Voting on Embryonic Stem Cell Research: Citizens More Supportive than Politicians

As the public debate over stem cell research continues, the observable voting behaviour in Switzerland offers a unique opportunity to compare the voting behaviour of politicians with that of voters. By analysing the outcomes of a referendum on a liberal new bill regulating such research, we reveal an about 10 percentage point lower conditional probability of the bill being accepted by politicians than by voters. Whereas the behaviour of politicians is driven almost entirely by party affiliation, citizen votes are driven not only by party attachment but also by church attendance. Seldom or never attending church increases the probability of bill acceptance by over 15 percentage points, while supporting the Liberal Party and the Social Democratic Party instead of the Christian Democratic Party makes supporting the bill more likely for voters, suggesting that religious observance is important. The observance of these tendencies in Switzerland—an environment that promotes discussion through direct democratic rights—strongly suggests that citizens see the benefits of stem cell research.

Fraudsters operate and officialdom turns a blind eye: a proposal for controlling stem cell therapy in China

Stem cell tourism-the flow of patients from home countries to destination countries to obtain stem cell treatment-is a growing business in China. Many concerns have been raised regarding fraudsters that operate unsafe stem cell therapies and an officialdom that turns a blind eye to the questionable technology. The Chinese regulatory approach to stem cell research is based on Guidelines and Administrative Measures, rather than legislation, and may have no binding force on certain institutions, such as military hospitals. There is no liability and traceability system and no visible set of penalties for non-compliance in the stem cell legal framework. In addition to the lack of safety and efficacy systems in the regulations, no specific expert authority has been established to monitor stem cell therapy to date. Recognizing the global nature of stem cell tourism, this article argues that resolving stem cell tourism issues may require not only the Chinese government but also an international mechanism for transparency and ethical oversight. A stringent set of international regulations that govern stem cell therapies can encourage China to improve stem cell regulation and enforcement to fulfill its obligations. Through an international consensus, a minimum standard for clinical stem cell research and a central enforcement system will be provided. As a result, rogue clinics that conduct unauthorized stem cell therapies can be penalized, and countries that are reluctant to implement the reconciled regulations should be sanctioned.

Setting Global Standards for Stem Cell Research and Clinical Translation: The 2016 ISSCR Guidelines

The International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR) presents its 2016 Guidelines for Stem Cell Research and Clinical Translation (ISSCR, 2016). The 2016 guidelines reflect the revision and extension of two past sets of guidelines (ISSCR, 2006; ISSCR, 2008) to address new and emerging areas of stem cell discovery and application and evolving ethical, social, and policy challenges. These guidelines provide an integrated set of principles and best practices to drive progress in basic, translational, and clinical research. The guidelines demand rigor, oversight, and transparency in all aspects of practice, providing confidence to practitioners and public alike that stem cell science can proceed efficiently and remain responsive to public and patient interests. Here, we highlight key elements and recommendations in the guidelines and summarize the recommendations and deliberations behind them.

Cell Churches and Stem Cell Marketing in South Korea and the United States

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 (often colloquially referred to as 'adult' stem cells) stem cells, in specific contrast to human embryonic stem cells (hESCs), 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.

Embryonic Stem Cell Research: A Policy Analysis

Many health care issues generate minimal passion, promoting benign commentary and support from the various stakeholders involved. Stem cell research does not fall into this category, and on the contrary, embryonic stem cell (ESC) research has continued to foster controversy and emotion. Since 1998, which marked the first successful laboratory isolation of ESCs, this research continues to ignite moral, ethical, and legal debate over its efficacy. The focus of this policy analysis is to introduce the issues, examine and address the various perspectives that surround ESC research, and present policy options and/or solutions that may be used to successfully create a policy consensus regarding this much debated topic.

2005 Donor Eligibility Requirements: Unintended Consequences for Stem Cell Development

Several human embryonic stem cell (hESC)-derived cell therapeutics have entered clinical testing and more are in various stages of preclinical development. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates these products under existing regulations and has stated that these products do not constitute a new class of biologic. However, as human tissue, hESCs are subject to regulations that were developed before hESCs were first described. The regulations have not been revised since 2005, well before the first hESC-derived product entered clinical studies. The current regulations require donors of hESCs to be tested in the same manner as donors of tissues intended for transplantation. However, because hESC-derived cell products are more than minimally manipulated, they are also subject to the same end-of-production release testing as most other biologic agents. In effect, this makes hESC products subject to redundant testing. No other biologic is subject to a similar testing requirement. Furthermore, the regulations that require donor testing are specifically applicable to hESC cells harvested from donors after a date in 2005. It is unclear which regulations cover hESCs harvested before 2005. Ambiguity in the guidelines and redundant testing requirements have unintentionally created a burdensome regulatory paradigm for these products and reluctance on the part of developers to invest in these promising therapeutics. We propose a simple solution that would address FDA safety concerns, eliminate regulatory uncertainty and risk, and provide flexibility for the FDA in the regulation of hESC-derived cell therapies.

SIGNIFICANCE

Regulatory ambiguity concerning donor eligibility screening and testing requirements for human embryonic stem cell lines, in particular those lines created before 2005, are causing significant concern for drug developers. Technically, most of these lines fail to meet eligibility under U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) rules for product licensure, and many developers are unaware that FDA approval to begin trials under an exemption is not an assurance that the FDA will grant licensure of the product. This Perspective outlines the ambiguity and the problem it has caused and proposes a workable solution. The intent is to generate stakeholder and FDA discussion on this issue.

Gamete Donor Consent and Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research

There is a lack of consensus on whether the derivation and use of human embryonic stem cells (hESCs) from embryos remaining after infertility treatment morally require the informed consent of third-party gamete donors who contributed to the creation of the embryos. The principal guidelines for oversight and funding of hESC research in the United States make minimal or no demands for consent from gamete donors. In this article, I consider the arguments supporting and opposing gamete donor consent for hESC research and embryo research more broadly. I argue that it is not morally permissible to use leftover embryos in research without the informed consent of gamete donors, and that we should place restrictions on the use of existing hESC lines that may have been derived without informed consent. While the standard argument for this position relies on an appeal to gamete donors' interest in controlling what happens with their genetic material, I identify shortcomings with the standard approach and seek instead to locate the deeper moral foundations for gamete donor consent in rights to bodily integrity.

Brüstle v. Greenpeace: Implications for Commercialisation of Translational Stem Cell Research

The lack of consensus on a common definition of the term 'embryo' has resulted in legal uncertainty affecting the permissibility of human embryonic stem cell (hESC) research and the commercialisation prospects and patenting of inventions of hESC origin in the EU. The Brüstle v. Greenpeace case, which by providing a very broad definition of a human embryo restricts the patentability of hESC-based inventions, aims at harmonising the patenting practices regarding interpretation of Article 6.2.c of Directive 98/44/ EC. It fills the gaps in national laws by providing binding interpretation guidelines for national courts. As currently no marketing authorisations have been granted to hESC-based products, implications of this judgment for translational hESC research together with other barriers to commercialisation of such research need to be analysed. In addition, whether the main obstacles relate to patenting restrictions or whether something else in the innovation system is impeding the market entry of these innovative products is discussed.

[Ideological conflicts leading to regulation of investigation with embryonic stem cells]

Human stem cells, particularly embryonic, have huge therapeutic potential to many degenerative diseases, so they are the subject of intense research in many countries. Because obtaining human stem cells involves the use of zygotes obtained by in vitro fertilization, when they arrive in the blastocyst stage, ethical issues arise that some groups considered insurmountable; in Mexico to date it has not been possible to established a law or rule that regulates the issue. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the ideological conflicts that have led to this situation, and about the light a judgment delivered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights may shed on a democratic and secular legislation.

Legal and regulatory news from Europe

An opinion presented to the Court of Justice of the European Union on the patentability of parthenotes challenges the court's own competence in a notorious case on human embryonic stem cells.

International regulatory landscape and integration of corrective genome editing into in vitro fertilization

Genome editing technology, including zinc finger nucleases (ZFNs), transcription activator-like effector nucleases (TALENs), and clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeat (CRISPR)/Cas, has enabled far more efficient genetic engineering even in non-human primates. This biotechnology is more likely to develop into medicine for preventing a genetic disease if corrective genome editing is integrated into assisted reproductive technology, represented by in vitro fertilization. Although rapid advances in genome editing are expected to make germline gene correction feasible in a clinical setting, there are many issues that still need to be addressed before this could occur. We herein examine current status of genome editing in mammalian embryonic stem cells and zygotes and discuss potential issues in the international regulatory landscape regarding human germline gene modification. Moreover, we address some ethical and social issues that would be raised when each country considers whether genome editing-mediated germline gene correction for preventive medicine should be permitted.

The evolution of legislation in the field of Medically Assisted Reproduction and embryo stem cell research in European union members

Medically Assisted Reproduction (MAR), involving in vitro fertilisation (IVF), and research on embryos have created expectation to many people affected by infertility; at the same time it has generated a surplus of laws and ethical and social debates. Undoubtedly, MAR represents a rather new medical field and constant developments in medicine and new opportunities continue to defy the attempt to respond to those questions. In this paper, the authors reviewed the current legislation in the 28 EU member states trying to evaluate the different legislation paths adopted over the last 15 years and highlighting those EU countries with no specific legislation in place and MAR is covered by a general health Law and those countries in which there are no laws in this field but only "guidelines." The second aim of this work has been to compare MAR legislation and embryo research in EU countries, which derive from different origins ranging from an extremely prohibitive approach versus a liberal one, going through a cautious regulatory approach.

Adipose derived stem cells: basic science fundaments and clinical application. An update

Soft tissues regeneration can be used to treat several kinds of diseases including congenital and post traumatic deformities, and to fill out tissue depression due to orbital and periorbital surgery, scars or cancer resections. Generally it is performed by the use of autologous tissue flaps, alloplastic implants and autologous fat grafting. All of these methods have several disadvantages, which include resorption of the autologous material, foreign body reaction and implant migration. Stem cell application has been suggested as a possible novel therapy for regenerative medicine thanks to their unlimited capacity of self-renewal, as well as the property to differentiate into multiple cell types under appropriate stimuli. This short review describe the recent development in stem cells isolation, expansion and characterization and their employment in tissue regeneration and tissue engineering.

Stem cells. Therapeutic cloning reaches milestone

Scientists have finally managed to derive patient-specific embryonic stem cells. But the technique still faces practical, ethical, and legal hurdles.

The regulatory sciences for stem cell-based medicinal products

Over the past few years, several new achievements have been made from stem cell studies, many of which have moved up from preclinical stages to early, or from early to middle or late, stages thanks to relatively safe profile and preliminary evidence of effectiveness. Moreover, some stem cell-based products have been approved for marketing by different national regulatory authorities. However, many critical issues associated mainly with incomplete understanding of stem cell biology and the relevant risk factors, and lack of effective regulations still exist and need to be urgently addressed, especially in countries where establishment of appropriate regulatory system just commenced. More relevantly, the stem cell regulatory sciences need to be established or improved to more effectively evaluate quality, safety and efficacy of stem cell products, and for building up the appropriate regulatory framework. In this review, we summarize some new achievements in stem cell studies, especially the preclinical and clinical studies, the existing regulations, and the associated challenges, and we then propose some considerations for improving stem cell regulatory sciences with a goal of promoting the steadfast growth of the well-regulated stem cell therapies abreast of evolvement of stem cell sciences and technologies.

Policy recommendations for addressing privacy challenges associated with cell-based research and interventions

BACKGROUND

The increased use of human biological material for cell-based research and clinical interventions poses risks to the privacy of patients and donors, including the possibility of re-identification of individuals from anonymized cell lines and associated genetic data. These risks will increase as technologies and databases used for re-identification become affordable and more sophisticated. Policies that require ongoing linkage of cell lines to donors' clinical information for research and regulatory purposes, and existing practices that limit research participants' ability to control what is done with their genetic data, amplify the privacy concerns.

DISCUSSION

To date, the privacy issues associated with cell-based research and interventions have not received much attention in the academic and policymaking contexts. This paper, arising out of a multi-disciplinary workshop, aims to rectify this by outlining the issues, proposing novel governance strategies and policy recommendations, and identifying areas where further evidence is required to make sound policy decisions. The authors of this paper take the position that existing rules and norms can be reasonably extended to address privacy risks in this context without compromising emerging developments in the research environment, and that exceptions from such rules should be justified using a case-by-case approach. In developing new policies, the broader framework of regulations governing cell-based research and related areas must be taken into account, as well as the views of impacted groups, including scientists, research participants and the general public.

SUMMARY

This paper outlines deliberations at a policy development workshop focusing on privacy challenges associated with cell-based research and interventions. The paper provides an overview of these challenges, followed by a discussion of key themes and recommendations that emerged from discussions at the workshop. The paper concludes that privacy risks associated with cell-based research and interventions should be addressed through evidence-based policy reforms that account for both well-established legal and ethical norms and current knowledge about actual or anticipated harms. The authors also call for research studies that identify and address gaps in understanding of privacy risks.

Human embryonic stem cell science and policy: the case of Iran

The paper is based on a large qualitative study of ethics, policy and regulation of human embryonic stem cell (hESC) science in Iran. This case study in five academic research centres used semi-structured interviews to examine in depth the views of stem cell scientists, embryologists and ethics committee members on hESC research policy in this Shia Muslim country. Although Iran's policy approach has been considered 'intermediate', what is described here seems to be a 'more flexible' policy on hESC science. This article describes three arguments to explain why Iran has shaped such a policy. These are: (1) a flexibility of the Shia tradition has allowed for hESC science; (2) permissive policy related to other fields of biomedicine, such as new assisted reproductive technologies, facilitated approval of hESC research; and (3) a lack of public debate of bioscience in Iran influences how its hESC research policy is perceived. Based on the empirical data, this paper then expands and refines the conceptual bioethical basis for the co-production of science, policy, and society in Iran. The notion of co-production implies that scientists, policy-makers, and sometimes other societal actors cooperate in the exchange, production, and application of knowledge to make science policy.

•

Science-policy interface in Iran.

•

Iran, Ethics & hESC research.

•

Science policy & Islam.

Patents on inventions related to human embryonic stem cells: the morality clause after Brüstle v. Greenpeace

This paper analyses the meaning of Article 6, para. 2, sub c of the Biotechnology Directive prohibiting patents on inventions using human embryos for industrial or commercial purposes. It first examines the evolution ofthe Court of Justice ofthe EU's interpretation of this provision (which is part of the morality clause) and focuses on its most recent decision, Brüstle v. Greenpeace. This is considered a landmark case for three reasons: firstly, because it defines for the first time the term "embryo" in patent law; secondly, because it is the Court of Justice (and not EPO) that ruled on patent law; the third reason is its very broad interpretation of the morality exclusion. The exclusion is no longer limited to embryos but is extended to (even banked) embryonic stem cells and all downstream products made with them. It then looks into the consequences for the patentability of inventions using cells derived from human embryonic stem cells, such as Brüstle's invention. The recent decision by Germany's Federal Court of Justice on the validity of Brüstle's patent emphasises the limited influence on the patentability of those inventions. After that, the paper addresses possible cuts in funding stem cell research and even legislative bans of this type of research. This is followed by an evaluation of the existence and content of the morality exclusion. After a comparative analysis with the US, which is lacking in such morality exclusion, the paper concludes that the morality clause as a whole paid its dues but the provision on the use of human embryos is questionable as there is no European consensus against the use of human embryos for industrial or commercial purposes.

[IPS an ethical paradigm for biomedical research]

One of the greatest advances in molecular and cell biology was the discovery of the Induced Pluripotent Stem cells (iPS) in mice, by Shinya Yamanka and his team in 2006. The possibility that these cells can be generated also in humans opens up unexpected ways of development for biomedicine. Its main contribution is the creation of a strong protocol that takes into account three major advances in biology such as; nuclear transfer techniques, the discovery of transcription factors associated with pluripotency and the isolation of mouse embryonic stem cells. A protocol that can be easily replicated in other laboratories to have the oportunity to design tests that allow modeling of many incurable diseases, drug testing for human cells or explore the possibilities of autologous transplants of tissues or organs. Yamanaka ethical motivation to find an alternative to embryonic stem cells (ES) and prevent the destruction of embryos produced by In Vitro Fertilization techniques (IVF), has proved to be a research model, in which the intuition of the ethical principles and its application in advanced biotechnology projects, has meant the opening of a whole new way of understanding the biology of embryonic development. It is clear that development, biologically understood (puede ser también ″treated″; tratado), is not a one-way street. The possibilities to deepen into the foundations of molecular biology and genetics, along with the expectations of its clinical applications have earned Yamanka the Nobel Prize in Medicine 2012, along with another great scholar Sir John Gurdon, discoverer of nuclear transfer techniques.

[The embryonic stem cells research. Example of biotechnology progress under extra-scientific pressure]

The possibility to isolate, cultivate, preserve, characterize and differentiate Human Embryonic Stem Cells (ES) discovered by James Thomson and his colleagues in 1998 was a milestone in the history of Stem Cell Research. Immediately after this discovery many speculations were made about the therapeutic possibilities of ES, motivated by ideological, political and economic aspects. The episode made clear the lack of scientific rationality and ethics when assessing realities as meaningful as those of human embryos obtained by in vitro fertilization techniques (IVF) or human eggs. Therapeutic Cloning as a promise to produce ″tailored″ Stem Cells reported by Hwang and his team in 2004, ended up being a scandal within the scientific community. The technical difficulties and ethical controversies that arose from obtaining ES were insurmountable. In 2010 only two clinical trials were reported using these cells. Those trials were abandoned in late 2011 arguing financial reasons. The discovery of Induced Pluripotent Stem Cell (iPS) in 2006 in mice and in 2007 in humans, represented the possibility of obtaining pluripotent stem cells without the need to destroy embryos. Today, the absence of clinical trials using ES, caused by financial difficulties as a result of its ineffectiveness, anticipates that the use of ES will be limited to certain experimental controls. Probably, the main contribution of Embryonic Stem Cells will be the understanding that biomedical research should follow an ethically and rationally based rigorous method that cannot be ignore.

Broadening the scope of debates around stem cell research

Over the last decade, stem cell research has generated an enormous amount of public, political and bioethical debate. These debates have overwhelmingly tended to focus on two moral issues: the moral status of human embryos and the duty to care for the sick and vulnerable. This preoccupation, especially on the question of moral status, has not only dichotomized the debate around two fundamentally incommensurable positions, it has come at the cost of other important issues largely being ignored. In highlighting some of the bioethical and regulatory deficiencies of this fixation, we draw on recent developments in the experimental use of autologous adult stem cells to argue for a more inclusive approach to the ethical issues surrounding stem cell research.

Closing the regulatory regress: GMP accreditation in stem cell laboratories

Contemporary biomedical research is conducted amidst regimes of national and transnational regulation. Regulation, like rules generally, cannot specify all the practicalities of their application. Regulations for biomedical research impose considerable constraints on laboratories and others. In principle, there is a never-ending regress whereby scientists have to provide increasingly more guarantees that protocols have been followed, standards reached and maintained, and rules adhered to. In practice, regulatory regress is not the actual outcome, as actors find ways of establishing closure for all practical purposes. Based on ethnographic case studies of two sites of biomedical work--the UK Stem Cell Bank and an anonymous laboratory working with primary human foetal material--this article documents the possibility of regulatory regress and strategies aimed at its closure.

Power-laws and the use of pluripotent stem cell lines

It is widely accepted that the (now reversed) Bush administration's decision to restrict federal funding for human embryonic stem cell (hESC) research to a few "eligible" hESC lines is responsible for the sustained preferential use of a small subset of hESC lines (principally the H1 and H9 lines) in basic and preclinical research. Yet, international hESC usage patterns, in both permissive and restrictive political environments, do not correlate with a specific type of stem cell policy. Here we conducted a descriptive analysis of hESC line usage and compared the ability of policy-driven processes and collaborative processes inherent to biomedical research to recapitulate global hESC usage patterns. We find that current global hESC usage can be modelled as a cumulative advantage process, independent of restrictive or permissive policy influence, suggesting a primarily innovation-driven (rather than policy-driven) mechanism underlying human pluripotent stem cell usage in preclinical research.

The stem cell wars: a dispatch from the front

The development of human embryonic stem cell (hESC) lines in 1998 offered the prospect of a new era of regenerative medicine in which cell therapy might cure intractable diseases such as type 1 diabetes, Parkinson's disease, and spinal cord injury. The Bush Administration decision in 2001 to restrict federal funding of hESC research touched off a controversy that continues to the present. One response to the Bush policy was establishment of state stem cell research funding programs, notably the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine (CIRM). As Director of the National Institute of Diabetes, Digestive, and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) and Vice Chair of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Stem Cell Task Force, and now as a member of the Empire State Stem Cell Funding Board and member of an Institute of Medicine (IOM) committee charged with evaluation of the CIRM, I have had the opportunity to gain a first-hand perspective of the field. Here I present my impressions of the legal and science policy debates and selectively summarize research progress toward the hoped-for cures.