Future Directions for Oversight of Stem Cell Research in the United States

Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 19 (1):79-103 (2009)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Future Directions for Oversight of Stem Cell Research in the United StatesCynthia B. Cohen (bio) and Mary A. Majumder (bio)Human pluripotent stem cell research, meaning research into cells that can multiply indefinitely and differentiate into almost all the cells of the body, has become a minefield in which science, ethics, and politics have collided over the last decade in the United States. President Barack Obama entered this highly charged territory when he indicated during his campaign that once in office he would issue an executive order expanding federally funded human embryonic stem cell (hESC) research and introduce rigorous oversight of it (Obama 2008a & b). Candidate Obama stated that he would require that the hESC lines involved were derived with donor consent from early embryos that otherwise would be discarded following in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment. However, in contrast with the policy of President George W. Bush, he would do so without regard to the date of their derivation. He added that he would call upon the director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to develop guidelines for federally funded hESC and other pluripotent stem cell research that would draw from the guidelines developed in 2005 by the National Academies of Science (NAS) for privately funded research (National Research Council 2005).A similar policy was written into the 2008 version of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, which reiterates the policy enunciated in earlier versions of this bill, passed twice by the Congress but vetoed by President Bush each time (House of Representatives, 110th Congress 2008).1 Depending on how one reads the 2008 version of the act, it could also apply in certain respects to hESC research that is not federally funded. We proceed on the assumption that the act applies at least to federally funded stem cell research. Therefore, it appears that the president or the Congress, or both, will approve of an expanded policy of federal funding of hESC research, as well as other forms of human pluripotent stem cell research. [End Page 79]This policy would make the guidelines developed by a committee appointed by NAS, a prestigious private body of American scientists and related experts, the primary basis for the development of new federal guidelines for oversight of hESC research in the United States. This would have certain advantages in that those familiar with the relevant scientific issues are likely to address them accurately and stem cell investigators are apt to accept restrictions on their research written by fellow scientists and ethics and policy experts whom they perceive as strong supporters of stem cell research. However, it also would have certain disadvantages. Chief among these is that the NAS committee appointed to write guidelines for this research, in its concern to see stem cell science move forward after a period in which many scientists and others maintained that it had been unduly restricted, might have overlooked or deferred consideration of some pressing ethical and policy issues. We maintain that this is the case—although we also maintain that the NAS guidelines provide a responsible foundation for developing NIH guidelines for stem cell research. Consequently, we propose that an NIH task force charged by the director of NIH with writing new guidelines for hESC and other stem cell research should revise and expand the NAS guidelines in ways that we propose below, as well as others that it considers necessary, and make it obligatory for those seeking federal funding of such research to follow these new guidelines.We highlight certain areas in which an ethical case can be made for strengthening the existing NAS guidelines and certain areas in which more fundamental ethical reflection—and building on that, additional guideline/policy development—seems warranted. Among the sections of the NAS guidelines that need clarification and reworking, we include those regarding consent to embryo donation, which provide one of their central focuses, and the development of human-nonhuman chimeras, which they address relatively briefly. In addition, we maintain that new guidelines need to be written to address the nascent ethical and policy issues raised by the possibility that human gametes will be induced from pluripotent stem cells in the next few years and that...

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,219

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Reflections on Governance Models for the Clinical Translation of Stem Cells.Jeremy Sugarman - 2010 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 38 (2):251-256.
Stem cell research: An ethical evaluation of policy options.Nikolaus Knoepffler - 2004 - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 14 (1):55-74.
Abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and waste.David A. Jensen - 2008 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 29 (1):27-41.
Stem Cell Research: Science, Ethics and the Popular Media.Karori Mbũgua - 2007 - Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics 17 (1):5-10.
Moral complicity in induced pluripotent stem cell research.Mark T. Brown - 2009 - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 19 (1):pp. 1-22.
Scientific self-regulation—so good, how can it fail?Patrick L. Taylor - 2009 - Science and Engineering Ethics 15 (3):395-406.
The Stem Cell Uncertainty Principle.Melinda Bonnie Fagan - 2013 - Philosophy of Science 80 (5):945-957.

Analytics

Added to PP
2016-02-04

Downloads
35 (#433,400)

6 months
4 (#698,851)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Embryo Stem Cell Research: Ten Years of Controversy.John A. Robertson - 2010 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 38 (2):191-203.
Embryo Stem Cell Research: Ten Years of Controversy.John A. Robertson - 2010 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 38 (2):191-203.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references