Advertisement

Ethical, Legal and Social Implications of Translational Stem Cell Research: Effects of Commercialization on Public Opinion and Trust of Stem Cell Research

  • Ubaka Ogbogu
  • Amy Zarzeczny
Part of the Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine book series (STEMCELL)

Abstract

We conduct a systematic review of studies of public opinion regarding stem cell research in Canada, US and the UK, and analyze the implications of findings for research governance. In particular, we examine and analyze available data on public trust of efforts aimed at promoting and commercializing stem cell research, and suggest strategies for managing public expectations, concerns, and attitudes.

Keywords

Stem cells Public opinion Public trust Commercialization Patents 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Professor Timothy Caulfield for his invaluable input to this piece and continual guidance and support, as well as Canada’s Stem Cell Network for funding assistance.

References

  1. 1.
    Government of Canada. Public opinion research into biotechnology issues, 5th wave, May 2001 [monograph on the internet]. Ottawa: Canadian Biotechnology Secretariat; 2001 [cited 2009 Nov 26]. Available from: http://www.bioportal.gc.ca/english/view.asp?x  =  550.
  2. 2.
    Government of Canada. Public opinion research into biotechnology issues, 6th wave, June 2002 [monograph on the internet]. Ottawa: Canadian Biotechnology Secretariat; 2002 [cited 2009 Nov 26]. Available from: http://www.bioportal.gc.ca/english/view.asp?x  =  548.
  3. 3.
    Government of Canada. Public opinion research into biotechnology issues, 8th wave, March 2003 [monograph on the internet]. Ottawa: Canadian Biotechnology Secretariat; 2003 [cited 2009 Nov 26]. Available from: http://www.bioportal.gc.ca/english/view.asp?x  =  546.
  4. 4.
    Government of Canada. A Canada-US public opinion research study on emerging ­technologies – report of findings, March 2005 [monograph on the internet]. Ottawa: Canadian Biotechnology Secretariat & Industry Canada; 2005 [cited 2009 Nov 26]. Available from: http://www.bioportal.gc.ca/english/view.asp?x  =  721.
  5. 5.
    Government of Canada. Emerging technologies tracking research, June 2006 [monograph on the internet]. Ottawa: Industry Canada; 2006 [cited 2009 Nov 26]. Available from: http://www.bioportal.gc.ca/english/view.asp?x  =  837&all  =  true#494.
  6. 6.
    U.K. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. Hybrids and chimeras: A report on the findings of the consultation, October 2007 [monograph on the internet]. London: Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority; 2007 [cited 2009 Nov 26]. Available from: http://www.hfea.gov.uk/docs/Hybrids_Report.pdf.
  7. 7.
    U.K. Human Genetics Advisory Commission, Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. Cloning issues in reproduction, science and medicine [monograph on the internet]. London: Human Genetics Advisory Commission & Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority; 1998 [cited 2009 Nov 26]. Available from: http://www.hfea.gov.uk/docs/Cloning_Issue_Report.pdf.
  8. 8.
    U.K. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. Donating eggs for research – ­safeguarding donors: A report on the HFEA consultation [monograph on the internet]. London: Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority; 2006 [cited 2009 Nov 26]. Available from: http://www.hfea.gov.uk/docs/donating_eggs_for_research_safeguarding_donors_report.pdf.
  9. 9.
    The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. Survey report: Public praises science; scientists fault public, media, July 9 2009 [monograph on the internet]. Washington, DC: The Pew Research Center; 2009. Available from: http://people-press.org/report/528/.
  10. 10.
    Gaskell G, Stares S, Allansdottir A, Allum N, Corchero C, Fischler C, et al. Europeans and biotechnology in 2005: Patterns and trends final report on Eurobarometer 64.3, July 2006 [monograph on the internet]. European Commission; 2006. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_244b_en.pdf.
  11. 11.
    Einsiedel E, Premji S, Geransar S, Orton NC, Thavaratnam T, Bennett LK. Diversity in public views toward stem cell sources and policies. Stem Cell Rev and Rep. 2009; 5:102–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nisbet MC. The Competition for worldviews: Values, information, and public support for stem cell research. Int J Publ Opin Res. 2005; 17: 90–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nisbet MC. The polls – trends: Public opinion about stem cell research and human cloning. Public Opin Quart. 2004; 68:131–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pardo R, Calvo F. Attitudes toward embryo research, worldviews, and the moral status of the embryo frame. Sci Commun. 2008; 30:8–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Downey R, Geransar R. Stem cell research, publics’ and stakeholder views. Health Law Rev. 2008; 16:69–85.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Critchley C. Understanding Australians’ perceptions of controversial scientific research. Aust J Emerg Technol Soc. 2004; 2:82–107.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shepherd R, Barnett J, Cooper H, Coyle A, Moran-Ellis J, Senior V, et al. Towards an understanding of British public attitudes concerning human cloning. Soc Sci Med. 2007; 65:377–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ho SS, Brossard D, Scheufele DA. Effects of value predispositions, mass media use, and knowledge on public attitudes toward embryonic stem cell research. Int J Publ Opin Res. 2008; 20:171–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lysagt T, Ankeny R, Kerridge I. The scope of public discourse surrounding proposition 71: Looking beyond the moral status of the embryo. Bioethic Inq 2006; 3:109–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ogbogu U, Rugg-Gunn P. The legal status of novel stem cell technologies in Canada. J Int Biotechnol Law 2008; 5:186–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Stojkovic M, Stojkovic P, Leary C, Hall VJ, Armstrong L, Herbert M, et al. Derivation of a human blastocyst after heterologous nuclear transfer to donated oocytes. Reprod Biomed Online 2005; 11:226–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Beyhan Z, Iager AE, Cibelli JB. Interspecies nuclear transfer: Implications for embryonic stem cell biology. Cell Stem Cell 2007; 1:502–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Chen Y, He ZX, Liu A, Wang K, Mao WW, Chu JX, et al. Embryonic stem cells generated by nuclear transfer of human somatic nuclei into rabbit oocytes. Cell Res. 2003; 13:251–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Chan AW, Dominko T, Luetjens CM, Neuber E, Martinovich C, Hewitson L, et al. Clonal propagation of primate offspring by embryo splitting. Science 2000 Jan 14; 287:317–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rossant J. Postimplantation development of blastomeres isolated from 4- and 8-cell mouse eggs. J Embryol Exp Morphol. 1976; 36:283–90.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Moore NW, Adams CE, Rowson LE. Developmental potential of single blastomeres of the rabbit egg. J Reprod Fertil. 1968; 17:527–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zarzeczny A, Caulfield T. Emerging ethical, legal and social issues associated with stem cell research and the current role of the moral status of the embryo. Stem Cell Rev and Rep. 2009; 5:96–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pollack A. F.D.A. approves a stem cell trial. New York Times, 2009 Jan 23. Available from: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/23/business/23stem.html?_r  =  1&adxnnl  =  1&adxnnlx  =  1259265630-e20fin/9DlTL  +  BJXJd66hw.
  29. 29.
    Geron comments on FDA hold on spinal cord injury trial. News release, 2009 Aug 27. California: Geron Corporation. Available from: http://www.geron.com/media/pressview.aspx?id  =  1188.
  30. 30.
    Isasi RM, Knoppers BM. Beyond the permissibility of embryonic and stem cell research: Substantive requirements and procedural safeguards. Hum Reprod. 2006; 21:2474–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Takahashi K, Yamanaka S. Induction of pluripotent stem cells from mouse embryonic and adult fibroblast cultures by defined factors. Cell 2006; 126:663–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Takahashi K, Tanabe K, Ohnuki M, Narita M, Ichisaka T, Tomoda K, Yamanaka S. Induction of pluripotent stem cells from adult human fibroblasts by defined factors. Cell 2007; 131:861–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kim D, Kim C, Moon J, Chung Y, Chang M, Han B, et al. Generation of human induced pluripotent stem cells by direct delivery of reprogramming proteins. Cell Stem Cell 2009; 4:472–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Woltjen K, Michael IP, Mohseni P, Desai R, Mileikovsky M, Hämäläinen R, et al. PiggyBac transposition reprograms fibroblasts to induced pluripotent stem cells. Nature 2009; 458:766–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Isasi RM, Knoppers BM. Mind the gap: Policy approaches to embryonic stem cell and cloning research in 50 countries. Eur J Health Law 2006; 13:9–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Caulfield T, Zarzeczny A, McCormick J, Bubela T, Critchley C, Einsiedel E, et al. The Stem cell research environment: A patchwork of patchworks. Stem Cell Rev and Rep. 2009; 5:82–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Bubela T, Nisbet MC, Borchelt R, Brunger F, Critchley C, Einsiedel E, et al. Science communication reconsidered. Nat Biotechnol. 2009; 27:514–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Nisbet MC, Mooney C. Framing science. Science 2007; 316:56.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Government of Canada. Summary of public opinion research into biotechnology issues in Canada [monograph on the internet]. Ottawa: Canadian Biotechnology Secretariat [cited 2009 Nov 26]. Available from: http://www.bioportal.gc.ca/english/view.asp?x  =  543.
  40. 40.
    National Conference of State Legislatures [stem cell research page on the internet] [updated January 2008; cited 2009 Nov 26]. Available from: http://www.ncsl.org/IssuesResearch/Health/EmbryonicandFetalResearchLaws/tabid/14413/Default.aspx.
  41. 41.
    The President, Executive order 13435 – Expanding approved stem cell lines in ethically responsible ways, U.S. Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 120, 2007 Jun 22.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    The President, Executive order 13505 – Removing barriers to responsible scientific research involving human stem cells, U.S. Federal Register, Vol. 74, No. 46, 2009 Mar 11.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    National Institutes of Health. Guidelines on human stem cell research [monograph on the internet]. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health, 2009. Available from: http://stemcells.nih.gov/policy/2009guidelines.htm.
  44. 44.
    Callus T. Patient perception of the human fertilisation and embryology authority. Med Law Rev. 2007; 15:62–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Caulfield T, Ogbogu U, Isasi R. Informed consent in embryonic stem cell research: Are we following basic principles? CMAJ 2007; 176:1722–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Ogbogu U. The regulation of conflicts of interest in the Canadian stem cell research environment. Health Law Rev. 2008; 16:41–55.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Government of Canada. Canada/U.S. Tracking Survey, March 2004 [monograph on the internet]. Ottawa: Canadian Biotechnology Secretariat; 2004 [cited 2009 Nov 26]. Available from: http://www.bioportal.gc.ca/english/view.asp?x  =  588.
  48. 48.
    Fisher D, Atkinson-Grosjean J, House D. Changes in academy/industry/state relations in Canada: The creation and development of the Networks of Centres of Excellence. Minerva 2001; 39:299–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Godin B, Doré C, Larivière V. The production of knowledge in Canada: Consolidation and diversification. J Can Stud. 2002; 37:56–70.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Ebers M, Powell WW. Biotechnology: Its origins, organization, and outputs. Res Policy 2007; 36:433–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Caulfield T. Sustainability and the balancing of the health care and innovation agendas: The commercialization of genetic research. Sask Law Rev. 2003; 66:629–45.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Caulfield T. The commercialization of human genetics: A discussion of issues relevant to the Canadian consumer. J Consum Pol.1998; 21:483–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Networks of Centres of Excellence Online [homepage on the Internet]. Ottawa, Canada [updated 2010 Jan 5; cited 2010 Jan 5]. Available from: www.nce-rce.gc.ca.
  54. 54.
    Government of Canada. Networks of Centres of Excellence program guide May 2009 [monograph on the internet]. Ottawa: Networks of Centres of Excellence [cited 2010 Jan 5]. Available from: http://www.nce-rce.gc.ca/_docs/competitions/ClosedCompetitions-ConcoursTermines/NCE2009/network_Prog_reseaux-e.pdf.
  55. 55.
    Government of Canada. Centres of Excellence for Commercialization and Research: Program Guide Oct 2009 [monograph on the internet]. Ottawa: Networks of Centres of Excellence [cited 2010 Jan 5]. Available from: http://www.nce-rce.gc.ca/_docs/competitions/Comp_2010/Guide_CECR_2010_eng.pdf.
  56. 56.
    Stem Cell Network. Updated progress report and strategic plan. Ottawa: Stem Cell Network; 2005.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Lemmens T. Leopards in the temple: Restoring scientific integrity in the commercialized research scene. J Law Med Ethics 2004; 32:641–57.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Downie J, Herder M. Reflections on the commercialization of research conducted in public institutions in Canada. McGill Health Law Pub. 2007; 1:23–44.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Herder M, Brian JD. Canada’s stem cell corporation: Aggregate concerns and the question of public trust. J Bus Ethics. 2008; 77:73–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Caulfield T, Ogbogu U. Biomedical research and the commercialization agenda: A review of main considerations for neuroscience. Account Res. 2008; 15:303–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Heller MA, Eisenberg RS. Can patents deter innovation? The anti-commons in biomedical research. Science 1998; 280:698–701.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Walsh JP, Arora A, Cohen WM. Science and the law. Working through the patent problem. Science 2003; 299:1021.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Walsh JP, Cho C, Cohen WM. Patents, material transfers and access to research inputs in biomedical research: Final report to the National Academy of Sciences’ Committee on Intellectual Property Rights in Genomic and Protein-related Inventions, Sept 2005 [monograph on the internet, cited 2010 Jan 5]. Available from: http://www2.druid.dk/conferences/viewpaper.php?id = 776&cf = 8
  64. 64.
    Walsh JP, Cohen WM, Cho C. Where excludability matters: Material versus intellectual ­property in academic biomedical research. Res Policy 2007; 36: 1184–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Caulfield T, Ogbogu U, Murdoch C.J, Einsiedel E. Patents, commercialization and the Canadian stem cell research community. Regen Med. 2008; 3:483–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    American Association for the Advancement of Science. International intellectual property experiences: A report of four countries [monograph on the internet]. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science; 2007 [cited 2010 Jan 5] Available from: http://sippi.aaas.org/Pubs/SIPPI_Four_Country_Report.pdf.
  67. 67.
    Lau D, Ogbogu U, Taylor B, Stafinski T, Menon D, Caulfield T. Stem cell clinics online: The Direct-to-consumer portrayal of stem cell medicine. Cell Stem Cell 2008; 3:591–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Viens AM, Savulescu J. Introduction to the Olivieri symposium. J Med Ethics 2004; 30:1–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Blackman S. Promises, promises: Ill-judged predictions and projections can be embarrassing at best and, at worst, damaging to the authority of science and science policy. The Scientist 2009; 23:28.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Gottweis H, Triendl R. South Korean policy failure and the Hwang debacle. Nature Biotechnology. 2006; 24:141–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Caulfield T. Profit and the production of knowledge: The impact of industry on representations of research results. Harv Health Pol Rev. 2007; 8:68–77.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Bekelman J, Li Y, Gross C. Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: A systematic review. JAMA. 2003; 289:454–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Haerlin B, Parr D. How to restore public trust in science. Nature. 1999; 400: 499.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Caulfield T, Einsiedel E, Merz J, Nicol D. Trust, patents, and public perceptions: The ­governance of controversial biotechnology research. Nat Biotechnol. 2006; 24:1352–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Fernando K, Bubela T, Caulfield T. Public trust and regulatory governance as represented through the media. Health Law Rev. 2006; 15:12–3.Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Government of Canada. Public opinion research into biotechnology issues, 3rd wave, Dec 2000 [monograph on the internet]. Ottawa: Canadian Biotechnology Secretariat; 2000 [cited 2009 Nov 26]. Available from: http://www.bioportal.gc.ca/english/view.asp?x  =  551&all  =  true.
  77. 77.
    Select Committee on Science and Technology, House of Lords, United Kingdom Parliament. Science and technology – 3rd Report, session 1999-2000 [monograph on the internet]. London: U.K. Parliament [cited 2010 Jan 13]. Available from: http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199900/ldselect/ldsctech/38/3801.htm.
  78. 78.
    National Science Foundation. Science and Engineering Indicators 2008 [monograph on the internet]. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation [cited 2010 Jan 13]. Available from: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind08/pdf/volume1.pdf.
  79. 79.
    Critchley C. Public opinion and trust in scientists: The role of the research context and the perceived motivation of stem cell researchers. Public Underst Sci. 2008; 17:309–27.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Critchley C, Turney L. Understanding Australians’ perceptions of controversial research: The influence of social trust, religiosity and anti-intellectualism on opposition to stem cell research. Aust J Emerg Technol Soc. 2004; 2:82–107.Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Twombly R. Goal of maintaining public’s trust brings research groups together on conflict-of-interest guidelines. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005; 97:1560–1.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    DeAngelis C. Conflict of interest and the public trust. JAMA. 2000; 284:2237–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Kelch R. Maintaining the public trust in clinical research. N Engl J Med. 2002; 346:285–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Sharpe V. Science, bioethics, and the public interest: On the need for transparency. Hastings Cent Rep. 2002; 32:23–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ubaka Ogbogu
    • 1
  • Amy Zarzeczny
  1. 1.SJD ProgramUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations