The Evolution of Policy Issues in Stem Cell Research: An International Survey
Stem cell research remains a tremendously promising yet controversial field of study. It continues to attract considerable public interest and generate discussion and debate. However, while the high profile of this field has endured, the tone and nature of the discourse that drives this profile appears to be changing. In order to get a better sense of how these potential shifts are perceived by individuals directly embedded in the field, we conducted an international internet survey of members of the stem cell research community. Our participants included individuals publishing on both scientific and ethical, legal and social issues topics. We explored the degree to which participants perceived that key policy issues were becoming more or less contentious over time. We queried views regarding the effect of regulatory frameworks on emerging stem cell research technologies and the extent to which participants experience pressure related to clinical translation. We also explored participants’ relationships with industry, experience with patents and perceptions regarding the emphasis placed on the potential economic benefits of stem cell research. Our results suggest that while traditional debates such as those surrounding the moral status of the embryo remain, other issues more closely associated with clinical translation and commercialization are perceived as becoming increasingly contentious. This survey provides useful insight into the perspectives of a sample of active researchers working in countries around the world as well as an opportunity to reflect on the likely direction of future stem cell policy debates.
KeywordsEthics Policy Stem cell research Debate Moral status of the embryo Clinical translation Commercialization
This work was supported in part by Canada’s Stem Cell Network and by the Cancer Stem Cell Consortium, with funding from the Government of Canada through Genome Canada and the Ontario Genomics Institute (OGI-047), and through the Canadian Institute of Health Research (CSC-105367). The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of their funders, institutions and project collaborators.
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest.
- 1.Neate, R. (2 Oct 2011). Stem cell centre gets green light from UK government. The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/oct/02/stem-cell-centre-government-investment. Accessed 15 June 2012.
- 5.Tumulty, K. (29 Jan 2012). Gingrich vows to ban embryonic stem-cell research, questions in vitro practices. The Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gingrich-vows-to-ban-embryonic-stem-cell-research-questions-in-vitro-practices/2012/01/29/gIQAIO9saQ_story.html. Accessed 3 May 2012.
- 9.California Institute of Regenerative Medicine. About CIRM. http://www.cirm.ca.gov/about-cirm. Accessed 3 May 2012.
- 11.Lovell-badge, R. (2011). Stem cell scientists will simply switch to U.S. if investment cannot be protected. The Daily Mail (United Kingdom). http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2050737/Stem-cell-scientists-switch-US-investment-protected.html. Accessed 25 July 2012.
- 16.Levine, A. (2010). Stem cell tourism: assessing the state of knowledge. ScriptED, 7(2), 274–282.Google Scholar
- 19.Zarzeczny, A., Rachul, C., Caulfield, T. (2012). The phenomenon of stem cell tourism. In A. Atala (Ed.), Progenitor and stem cell technologies and therapies: Principles and Issues, Vol 1. Philadelphia: Woodhead Publishing.Google Scholar