Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Privatized Biomedical Research, Public Fears, and the Hazards of Government Regulation: Lessons from Stem Cell Research

  • Published:
Health Care Analysis Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper discusses the hazards of regulating controversial biomedical research in light of the emergence of powerful, multi-national biotechnology corporations. Prohibitions on the use of government funds can simply force controversial research into the private sphere, and unilateral or multilateral research bans can simply encourage multi-national companies to conduct research in countries that lack restrictive laws. Thus, a net effect of government regulation is that research migrates from the public to the private sphere. Because private research receives less oversight and external scrutiny than public research, it can threaten the welfare and rights of human subjects, scientific progress and openness, and the quality of the approval process for new biomedical technologies. In order to avoid the harmful effects of government regulation of biotechnology, society should promote meaningful discussion and dialogue among scientists, industry leaders, and the public before resorting to regulatory solutions. Legislative or executive initiatives should be applied with great discretion and care, and should be crafted in such a way that they protect public health and safety, promote scientific progress, and avoid the hazards of privatized research and polarized debates.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Altman, K. (1996) Secrecy is HurtingMedical Research, a U.S. Official Says. New York Times (10 February), 11.

  • Andrews, L. (1999) Legal, Ethical, and Social Concerns in the Debate Over Stem-cell Research. The Chronicle of Higher Education (Jan 29) 45(21),B4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Annas, G. (1998) Why We Should Ban Human Cloning. New England Journal of Medicine 339, 122–125.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bagla, P. (1998) Use of Stem Cells Still Legally Murky, But Hearing Offers Hope. Science 282, 1962–1963.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beardsley, T. (1994) Big-Time Biology. Scientific American 271(5), 90–94.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Berghel, H. (1997) Post Mortem for the Communications Decency Act. Computers and Society 27(4), 8–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brody, B. (1995) Ethical Issues in Drug Testing, Approval, and Pricing. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, D. (1998) Human Genome Declaration Looks Set for United Nations Approval. Nature 396, 297.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, K., McWhire, J., Ritchie, W. and Wilmut, I. (1997) Sheep Cloned by Nuclear Transfer From a Cultured Cell Line. Nature 385, 810–813.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Carey, J., Freudlich, N., Flynn, J. and Gross, N. (1997) The Biotech Century. Business Week (10 March), 79–88.

  • Clinton, W. (1997) Prohibition on Federal Funding For Cloning Human Beings: Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies. The White House: Office of the Press Secretary, 4 March.

  • Cohen, J. (1997) The Genomics Gamble. Science 275, 767–772.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Connolly, F. (1996) A Call For a Statement of Expectations for the Global Information Infrastructure. Science and Engineering Ethics 2, 167–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of Health and Human Services (1998) Institutional Review Boards: a System in Jeopardy? Washington, DC: DHHS, June.

    Google Scholar 

  • Enriquez, J. (1998) Genomics and the World's Economy. Science 281, 925–926.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Foster, F. and Shook, R. (1993) Patents, Copyrights, and Trademarks. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Francis, L. (1998) IRBs and Conflicts of Interest. In R. Spece, D. Shimm and A. Buchanan (Eds.), Conflicts of Interest in Clinical Practice and Research (pp. 418–436). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gearhart, J. (1998) New Potential For Human Embryonic Stem Cells. Science 282, 1061–1062.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Huth, E. (1998) Conflicts of Interest in Industry-Funded Clinical Research. In R. Spece, D. Shimm and A. Buchanan (Eds.), Conflicts of Interest in Clinical Practice and Research (pp. 407–417). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaffe, A. (1996) Trends and Patterns in Research and Development Expenditures in the United States. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 93, 12658–12663.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kass, L. (1985) Toward a More Natural Science: Biology and Human Affairs. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kestendbaum, D. (1998) Cloning Plan Spawns Ethics Debate. Science 279, 315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolata, G. (1994) Parkinson Patients Set for First Rigorous Test of Fetal Cell Implants. New York Times (8 February), C3.

  • Korn, D. (1997) FDA Under Siege: The Public at Risk. Science 276, 1627.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, E. A. (1998) Versatile Cell Line Raises Scientific Hopes, Legal Questions. Science 282, 1014–1015.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, E. (1998) Disclosing Data Can Get You in trouble. Science 276, 671–672.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marshal, E. (1998) Claim of Human-Cow Embryo Greeting with Skepticism. Science 282, 1390–1391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, E. (1998) Biomedical Groups Derail Fast-tack Anticloning Bill. Science 279, 1123–1124.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, E. (1999) Ruling May Free NIH to Fund Stem Cell Studies. Science 283, 465–467.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, E. and Pennisi, E. (1999) Hubris and the Human Genome. Science 280, 994–995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martinez, F., Maillet, R., Legendre, C. and Buisson, C. (1998) Acute Myocardial Infarction Associated with Sildenafil. Lancet 352, 1937.

  • McCain, K. (1996) Communication, Competition and Secrecy: The Production and Dissemination of Research-Related Information in Genetics. Science, Technology and Human Values 16, 492.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Bioethics Advisory Commission (1997) (NBAC) Cloning Human Beings: Report and Recommendations. Rockville, MD: National Bioethics Advisory Commission, June.

    Google Scholar 

  • NBAC (1997) Cloning Human Beings: Report and Recommendations. Rockville,MD

  • NBAC. Pence, G. (1995) Classic Cases in Medical Ethics, 2nd ed. New York: McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pence, G. (1998) Who's Afraid of Human Cloning? Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pennisi, E. (1997) The Lamb That Roared. Science 278, 2038–2039.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pennisi, E. (1998) After Dolly, a Pharming Frenzy. Science 279, 646–649.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Presidential Advisory Committed on Human Radiation Experiments (PACHRE). (1996) The Human Radiation Experiments. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Priest, S. (1999) Popular Beliefs, Media, and Biotechnology. In S. Friedman, S. Dunwoody and C. Rogers (Eds.), Communicating Uncertainty (pp. 95–112).Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramsey, P. (1970) Fabricated Man: The Ethics of Genetic Control. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Resnik, D. (1998a) The Ethics of Science. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Resnik, D. (1998b) Industry-Sponsored Research: Secrecy versus Corporate Responsibility. Business and Society Review 99, 31–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rifkin, J. (1983) Algeny. New York: Viking Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rifkin, J. (1998) The Biotech Century. New York: Putnam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sagoff, M. (1999) DNA Patents: Marking Ends Meet. In A. Chapman (Ed.), Perspectives on Genetic Patenting (pp. 245–267). New York: American Association for the Advancement of Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schatz, G. (1998) The Swiss Vote on Gene Technology. Science 281, 1810–1811.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sheldon, K. (1991) Biotechnics and Society: The Rise of Industrial Genetics. New York: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shenk, D. (1997) Biocapitalism. Harper's Magazine (December), 37–45.

  • Stix, G. (1997) Profile: Jeremy Rifkin. Scientific American 277(2), 28–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • The White House, Office of Communications (1997) Directive on Cloning (March 3).

  • Thomson et al. (1998) Embryonic Stem Cells Derived From Human Blastocysts. Science 282, 1145–1147.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Volti, R. (1995) Society and Technological Change, 3rd edn. New York: St. Martin's Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wade, N. (1998) It's a Three-Legged Race to Decipher the Human Genome. New York Times (23 June), 3.

  • Wadman, M. (1996) Drug Company Suppressed Publication of Research. Nature (2 May) 381, 4.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wadman, M. (1999) Congress May Block Stem-cell Research. Nature 397, 639.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, P. (1997) Bill Would Stiffen Rules for Informed Consent. The Chronicle of Higher Education 43(22), A38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weston, A. (1997) A Practical Companion to Ethics. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, N. (1997) Cloning Sparks Calls for New Laws. Science 275, 1415.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, N. (1998) Agricultural Biotech Faces Backlash in Europe. Science 281, 768–771.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wilmut, I (1998) Cloning for Medicine. Scientific American (December) 279, 58–63.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. East Carolina University, School of Medicine, 2S-17 Brody Medical Sciences Building, Greenville, NC, 27858-4354, USA (Phone

    David B. Resnick

Authors
  1. David B. Resnick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Resnick, D.B. Privatized Biomedical Research, Public Fears, and the Hazards of Government Regulation: Lessons from Stem Cell Research. Health Care Analysis 7, 273–287 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009405027357

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009405027357

Search

Navigation