Advertisement

Stem Cell Reviews and Reports

, Volume 8, Issue 4, pp 1037–1042 | Cite as

The Evolution of Policy Issues in Stem Cell Research: An International Survey

  • Timothy Caulfield
  • Christen Rachul
  • Amy Zarzeczny
Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Ethics Policy Stem cell research Debate Moral status of the embryo Clinical translation Commercialization 

Notes

Acknowledgments

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.

Supplementary material

12015_2012_9404_MOESM1_ESM.docx (28 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 27 kb)

References

  1. 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.
  2. 2.
    Caulfield, T. (2010). Stem cell research and economic promises. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 38, 303–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hyun, I. (2010). The bioethics of stem cell research and therapy. The Journal of Clinical Investigation, 120(1), 71–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Blendon, R., Kim, M. K., & Benson, J. (2011). The public, political parties, and stem-cell research. The New England Journal of Medicine, 365(20), 1853–1856.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.
  6. 6.
    Young, S. (2012). Candidates play to the right on science; rivals for the Republican nomination laud research but take a hard line on embryonic stem cells and climate. Nature, 481, 421–423.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Caulfield, T., & Bubela, T. (2007). Why a criminal ban? Analyzing the arguments against somatic cell nuclear transfer in the Canadian parliamentary debate. The American Journal of Bioethics, 7(2), 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zarzeczny, A., Scott, C., Hyun, I., Bennett, J., Chandler, J., Chargé, S., et al. (2009). iPS cells: mapping the policy issues. Cell, 139(6), 1032–1037.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    California Institute of Regenerative Medicine. About CIRM. http://www.cirm.ca.gov/about-cirm. Accessed 3 May 2012.
  10. 10.
    Zarzeczny, A., & Caulfield, T. (2009). Emerging ethical, legal and social issues associated with stem cell research and the current role of the moral status of the embryo. Stem Cell Reviews and Reports, 5(2), 96–101.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.
  12. 12.
    Vrtovec, K. T., & Scott, C. T. (2011). The European Court of Justice ruling in Brüstle v. Greenpeace: the impacts on patenting of human induced pluripotent stem cells in Europe. Cell Stem Cell, 9, 502–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Little, M., Hall, W., & Orlandi, A. (2006). Delivering on the promise of human stem-cell research: what are the real barriers? EMBO Reports, 7(12), 1188–1192.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bubela, T., & Caulfield, T. (2010). Role and reality: technology transfer at Canadian universities. Trends in Biotechnology, 28, 447–451.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lau, D., Ogbogu, U., Taylor, B., Stafinski, T., Menon, D., & Caulfield, T. (2008). Stem cell clinics online: the direct-to-consumer portrayal of stem cell medicine. Cell Stem Cell, 3, 591–594.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Levine, A. (2010). Stem cell tourism: assessing the state of knowledge. ScriptED, 7(2), 274–282.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Regenberg, A., Hutchinson, L., Schanker, B., & Matthews, D. (2009). Medicine on the fringe: stem cell-based interventions in advance of evidence. Stem Cells, 27, 2312–2319.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cyranoski, D. (2012). Stem-cell therapy takes off in Texas: a boom in unproven procedures is worrying scientists. Nature, 483, 13–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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
  20. 20.
    Cyranoski, D. (2011). Texas prepares to fight for stem cells. Nature, 477, 377–378.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bubela, T., & Caulfield, T. (2010). Role and reality: technology transfer at Canadian universities. Trends in Biotechnology, 28(9), 447–451.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Caulfield, T., Harmon, S., & Joly, Y. (2012). Open science versus commercialization: a modern research conflict? Genome Medicine, 4, 17.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Timothy Caulfield
    • 1
    • 3
  • Christen Rachul
    • 1
  • Amy Zarzeczny
    • 2
  1. 1.Health Law and Science Policy GroupUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada
  2. 2.Johnson-Shoyama Graduate School of Public PolicyUniversity of ReginaReginaCanada
  3. 3.Law CentreUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations