Abstract
Key ethical issues arise in association with the conduct of stem cell research by research institutions in the United States. These ethical issues, summarized in detail, receive no adequate translation into federal laws or regulations, also described in this article. U.S. Federal policy takes a passive approach to these ethical issues, translating them simply into limitations on taxpayer funding, and foregoes scientific and ethical leadership while protecting intellectual property interests through a laissez faire approach to stem cell patents and licenses. Those patents and licenses, far from being scientifically and ethically neutral in effect, virtually prohibit commercially sponsored research that could otherwise be a realistic alternative to the federal funding gap. The lack of federal funding and related data-sharing principles, combined with the effect of U.S. patent policy, the lack of key agency guidance, and the proliferation of divergent state laws arising from the lack of Federal leadership, significantly impede ethical stem cell research in the United States, without coherently supporting any consensus ethical vision. Research institutions must themselves implement steps, described in the article, to integrate addressing ethical review with the many legal compliance issues U.S. federal and state laws create.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Rideout W M., Hochedlinger K., Kyba M., Daley G.Q., Jaenisch R. (2002) Correction of a genetic defect by nuclear transplantation and combined cell and gene therapy. Cell;109: 17–27.
Fischbach G D & Fischbach R L. (2004) Stem cells: science, policy and ethics. Journal of Clinical Investigation.; 114: 1364–1370.
Originally in the Balanced Budget Downpayment Act, 110 Stat. 26, 34 (1996), subsequently reenacted as Public Law 106-554, Sec. 510.
National Bioethics Advisory Commission. (1997). Cloning Human Beings. Rockville, MD.
“Rendering legal opinion regarding federal funding for research involving human pluripotent stem cells,” Memo from Harriet S. Rabb, General Counsel of the Department of Health and Human Services to Harold Varmus, Director of the National Institutes of Health, January 15, 1999.
National Bioethics Advisory Commission. (2000), Ethical Issues in Human Stem Cell Research. Rockville, MD.
President’s Council on Bioethics. (2002). Human Cloning and Human Dignity: the Report of the President’s Council on Bioethics. New York: Public Affairs. available at www.bioethics.gov/topics/cloning_index.html, accessed October 2005.
Towns C R & Jones D G. (2004) Stem cells, embryos, and the environment: a context for both science and ethics. Journal of Medical Ethics. 30: 410–413.
McGee, Kaplan A L. (1999), What’s in the Dish? Hastings CenterRreporter 29:36–37.
Meyer M J., Nelson L J. (2001) Respecting what we destroy — reflections on human embryo research. Hastings Center report 31: 16–23.
Green R M. (2002) Determining moral status. American Journal of Bioethics. 2: 20–30.
Doerflinger R M. (2002) Ditching Religion and Reality. American Journal of Bioethics 2: 31–32.
Hansen J-E S. (2004) Embryonic stem cell production through therapeutic cloning has fewer ethical problems than stem cell harvest from surplus IVF embryos. Journal of Medical Ethics 28: 86–88.
deWert G et al.. (2003) Human embryonic stem cells: Research ethics and policy. Human Reproduction. 18: 672–682.
McHugh P R. (2004) Zygote and clonote — The ethical use of embryonic stem cells. N.Engl. J. Med. 351: 209–211.
Sylvester KG., Longaker M T. (2004) Stem cells: review and update. Archives of Surgery. 139: 93–99.
McLean M R. (2002) What’s in a Name? “Nuclear Transplantation” and the Ethics of Stem Cell Research. Hastings L. J. 53: 1017.
Lo B., Chou V., et al. (2004) Informed consent in human oocyte, embryo, and embryonic stem cell research. Fertility and Sterility 82: 559–563.
Childress J F. (2004) Human stem cell research: some controversies in bioethics and public policy. Blood cells, Molecules and Diseases 32: 100–105.
Kuhn V T. (2002) Stem cells: equity or ownership? American Journal of Bioethics. 2: 1–2.
Sandel M J. (2004) Embryo Ethics — The Moral Logic of Stem Cell Research. N. Engl. J. Med. 351: 207–209.
Tauer C A. (2004) International policy failures: cloning and stem cell research. Lancet. 364: 209–214.
Pasquale F. (2002) Two Concepts of Immortality: Reframing Public Debate on Stem Cell Research. Yale Journ. Law & the Humanities 14: 73–121.
Wertz D C. (2002) Embryos and Stem Cell Research in the United States: History and Politics. Gene Therapy. 9: 674–678.
Lauritzen P. (2005) Stem cells, biotechnology and human rights: implications for a post-human future. The Hastings CenterReport. 35(2): 25–33.
Kopinski N E. (2004) Human-Non-Human Chimeras: A Regulatory Proposal on the Blurring on Species Lines. B.C.L. Rev. 45: 619.
Green M., Schill K., Takahashi S., Bateman-House A., Beauchamp T., Bok H., Cheney D., Coyle J., Deacon T., Dennett D., Donovan P., Flanagan O., Goldman S., Greely H., Martin L., Miller E., Mueller D., Siegel A., Solter D., Gearhart J., McKhann G., Faden R. (2005) Moral issues of nonhuman primate neural grafting. Science. 309: 385–386.
Heng BC, Hong YH, Cao T. (2005) Modulating gene expression in stem cells without recombinant DNA and permanent genetic modification. Cell and Tissue Research. 321(2): 147–150.
NOTICE OF CRITERIA FOR FEDERAL FUNDING OF RESEARCH ON EXISTING HUMAN EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS AND ESTABLISHMENT OF NIH HUMAN EMBRYONIC STEM CELL REGISTRY, NOT-OD-02-005 (November 7, 2001), http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-02-005.html (accessed October 2005).
Halliday S. (2004) A Comparative Approach to the Regulation of Human Embryonic Stem Cells Research in Europe. Med. Law Rev. 2004; 12: 40–69.
http://stemcells.nih.gov/. (accessed October 2005).
See NIH Stem Cell Information — Frequently Asked Questions, Finding questions 3–4, 6–8 (http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/faqs.asp#notlisted (accessed October 2005))
Office for Human Research Protections, Department of Health and Human Services, Guidance for Investigators and Institutional Review Boards regarding Research Involving Human Embryonic Stem Cells, Germ Cells and Stem Cell-derived Test Articles. March 19, 2002. www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/stemcell.pdf, accessed October 2005.
21 C.F.R. Parts 50 and 56.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Cellular Therapy: Potential for Treating Heart Disease. June 21, 2004 (accessed October 2005 at: www.fda.gov/cber/genetherapy/celltherapyheart.htm.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Proposed Approach to Regulation of cellular and Tissue-based Products. February 1997 (accessed October 2005 at: www.fda.gov/cber/gdlns/celltissue.pdf).
Auerbach S A (Comments). (2002) Taking Another Look at the Definition of an Embryo: President Bush’s Criteria, and the Problematic Application of Federal Regulations to Human Embyonic Stem Cells. Emery Law Journal 51: 1557.
21 C.F.R 1271.3(e).
66 FR 5447 (2001); 66 Fed. Reg. 1508 (2000); 64 FR 52696; and 68 FR 2689 (2003).
U.S.Patent Nos. 5843780 and 6200806.
WiCell website, www.Wicell.org, (accessed October 2005)
307 F.3d 1331, 64 U.S.P.Q 2d 1737 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
__ U.S. ___ (No. 03-1237, decided June 13, 2005)
See, e.g., the material transfer agreement used for the transfer of the new stem cell lines created by Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator Douglas Melton at Harvard University, available through http://www.meb.harvard.edu/melton/hues/HUES_MTA.html, accessed March 2005.
Licensing fees slow advance of stem cells. Nature. 2005;435(7040): 272–273.
See, e.g., the Solicitor General’s amicus brief in response to the petition for the grant of certiorari in Duke University v. John M. J. Madey (No.02-1007), accessed in December 2004 at http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/2002/2pet/6invit/2002-1007.pet.ami.inv.html
See, e.g., Hella M T, Eisenberg R S. (1998) Can Patents Deter Innovation? The Anticommons in Biomedical Research. 1998; 280: 698.
NIH Grants Policy, Part II Subpart A, Availability of Research Results: Publications, Intellectual Property Rights, and Sharing Biomedical Research Resources, accessed at. http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps_2003/NIHGPS_Part7.htm#_Toc54600131 (accessed October 2005)
NIH Final NIH Statement on Sharing Research Data, NOT-OD-03-032 (February 26, 2003).
Report of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Working Group on Research Tools, Presented to the Advisory Committee to the Director, June 4, 1998. http://www.nih.gov/news/researchtools/index.htm (accessed October 2005)
NIH. Principles and Guidelines for Recipients of NIH Research Grants and Contracts on Obtaining and Disseminating Biomedical Research Resources: Final Notice, 64 Fed. Reg. 72090 (Dec. 23, 1999).
Rai A K., Eisenberg R S. (2003) Bayh-Dole Reform and the Progress of Biomedicine. Law & Contemporary Problems. 66: 289.
Mikhail P. (2000) Hopkins v. CellPro: An Illustration that Patenting and Exclusive Licensing of Fundamental Science is Not Always in the Public Interest. Harvard Journal of Law and Technology 13: 375–394.
Bagley M A. (2003) Patent First, Ask Questions Later: Morality and Biotechnology in Patent Law. Wm. & Mary Law Review. 45: 469.
Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980).
Juicy Whip v. Orange Bang, 185 F.3d 1364, 1367 (Fed.Cir 1999).
Committee on Guidelines for Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research, National Research Council and Institute of Medicine of the National Academies. (2005) “Guidelines for Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research.” (National Academies Press 2005).
Holmes O W. (1897) The Path of the Law. Harvard Law Review. 10: 457.
Zoloth L. (2002) Jordan’s Banks, A View from the First Years of Human Embryonic Stem cell Research. American Journal of Bioethics 2: 3–11.
21 C.F.R. 56.111(a)(2); 45 C.F.R. 46.111 (a)(2).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
The opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own, and are not necessarily the opinions of others, including Children’s Hospital Boston. Portions of earlier versions of this article were previously published by the American Bar Association and the New York State Bar Association.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Taylor, P.L. The gap between law and ethics in human embryonic stem cell research: Overcoming the effect of U.S. Federal policy on research advances and public benefit. SCI ENG ETHICS 11, 589–616 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-005-0028-x
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-005-0028-x