Special Report

† Author for correspondence

Email the corresponding author at krwm@rice.edu

James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy, Rice University, 6100 Main Street, MS-40, Houston, TX 77005, USA

Published Online:22 Dec 2010https://doi.org/10.2217/rme.10.92

Abstract

In this article, we compare two different approaches to establishing stem cell policy: a defined policy (the UK) and a changing policy (the US). The UK has a clear and precise policy, agreed upon and supported by lawmakers, scientists and the public. By contrast, US federal policy is continuously being updated based on balancing political ideologies and advances in science, and it only regulates federal funding. By investigating these contrasting policy approaches, we hope to demonstrate the impact of policy on stem cell research and public opinion.

Keywords:

Papers of special note have been highlighted as: ▪ of interest ▪▪ of considerable interest

Bibliography

1 Salter B, Harvey O: Stem cell innovation in the USA: the benefits of the minimal state. Regen. Med.3(4),597–610 (2008).
Google Scholar
2 Warnock M: Report of the committee of inquiry into human fertilisation and embryology. Stationary Office BooksUK (1984).▪ The Warnock report is a famous review and set of recommendations related to the ethical and moral impact of human embryo research. The report resulted in the creation of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) in the UK and the limit of 14 days of development on human embryo research.
Google Scholar
3 Cressey D: UK embryo agency faces the axe. Nature466,674 (2010).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
4 Cressey D: Quango bonfire kindles advice fears. Nature467,895–896 (2010).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
5 National Bioethics Advisory Commission: Cloning Human Beings: Report and recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Rockville, MD, USA (1997).
Google Scholar
6 National Bioethics Advisory Commission: Ethical Issues in Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research, Volume I, Report and recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Rockville, MD, USA (1998).
Google Scholar
7 Harris G: Stem cell financing ban ends, for now. NY Times, 9 September (2010).
Google Scholar
8 Levine AD: Research policy and the mobility of US stem cell scientists. Nat. Biotechnol.24(7),865–866 (2006).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
9 Winston RML: Does government regulation inhibit embryonic stem cell research and can it be effective? Cell Stem Cell1(1),27–34 (2007).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
10 Noll R: Designing an effective programme of state-sponsored human embryonic stem cell research. Berkeley Technol. Law J.21(3),1143–1174 (2006).
Google Scholar
11 National Academies: Guidelines for Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research. National Academy Press, Washington DC, USA (2005).
Google Scholar
12 Nolan JM, Samad EU, Martins SAR, Brozak SG: The Bankers: US firms could be left behind. Nature467,1032–1033 (2010).
Google Scholar
13 Owen-Smith J, McCormick J: An international gap in human ES cell research. Nat. Biotechnol.24(4),391–392 (2006).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
14 Levine AD: Identifying under- and overperforming countries in research related to human embryonic stem cells. Cell Stem Cell2,521–524 (2008).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
15 Levine AD: Trends in the geographic distribution of human embryonic stem-cell research. Politics Life Sci.23(2),40–45 (2005).
Google Scholar
16 Pollack A: FDA approves a stem cell trial. NY Times, 23 January (2009).
Google Scholar
17 Caulfield T, Zarzeczny A, McCormick J et al.: The stem cell research environment: a patchwork of patchworks. Stem Rev. Rep.5(2),82–88 (2009).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
18 Downey R, Geransar R: Stem cell research, publics, and stakeholder views. Health Law Rev.16(2),70–85 (2008).
Google Scholar
19 Gottweis H, Prainsack B: Emotion in political discourse: contrasting approaches to stem cell governance in the USA, UK, Israel, and Germany. Regen. Med.1(6),823–829 (2006).
Google Scholar
101 Stem Cell Policy: World Stem Cell Map www.aei.org/outlook/100997
Google Scholar
102 UK Stem Cell Initiative: Report and recommendations, Department of Health (2006) www.dh.gov.uk/ab/UKSCI
Google Scholar
103 UK Medical Research Council www.mrc.ac.uk
Google Scholar
104 NIH www.nih.gov
Google Scholar
105 National Statistics Online www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=6
Google Scholar
106 American FactFinder http://factfinder.census.gov
Google Scholar
107 Matthews KR, Rowland M: Stem Cell Policy in the Obama Age: Texas, US, and UK Perspectives, a September 2009 Conference Report. Baker Institute for Public Policy, Houston, TX, USA (2010) www.bakerinstitute.org/publications/ST-PUB-StemCellConfReport.pdf▪▪ Describes in detail the histories and politics involved in creating stem cell policies in the UK and the US.
Google Scholar
108 Baker Institute events, “Stem Cells: Saving Lives or Crossing Lines, Part V: Texas–UK Collaboration” www.bakerinstitute.org/events/txukstemcell09
Google Scholar
109 Baker Institute events, “Stem Cell Policy in the Obama Age” www.bakerinstitute.org/events/stemcelldinner09
Google Scholar
110 The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act of 1990 www.hfea.gov.uk/2070.html
Google Scholar
111 The Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Research Purposes) Regulations: S.I. 2001/188, part 2, paragraph 2 (UK) www.opsi.gov.uk/SI/si2001/20010188.htm
Google Scholar
112 Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority. Hybrids and Chimeras: A consultation on the ethical and social implications of creating human–animal embryos in researchwww.hfea.gov.uk/docs/Hybrids_Chimera_review.pdf
Google Scholar
113 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, Annual Report and Accounts 2009/10 www.hfea.gov.uk/docs/Annual_Report_2010_Web_reduced.pdf
Google Scholar
114 UK Department of Health, “Liberating the NHS: Report of the arm’s-length bodies review” www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@en/@ps/documents/digitalasset/dh_118053.pdf
Google Scholar
115 US Dept. Health and Human Services: Title 45 ‘Public Welfare,’ Part 46, ‘Protection of Human Subjects.’ In: Code of Federal Regulationswww.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.htm
Google Scholar
116 The Library of Congress (THOMAS) http://thomas.loc.gov/
Google Scholar
117 Human Embryonic Stem Cell Policy Under Former President Bush http://stemcells.nih.gov/policy/2001policy.htm
Google Scholar
118 Obama B: Removing Barriers for Responsible Scientific Research Involving Human Stem Cells. In: Executive Order. 9 March (2009) www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Removing-Barriers-to-Responsible-Scientific-Research-Involving-Human-Stem-cells/
Google Scholar
119 U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruling Aug 31, 2010, Sherley vs. Sebeliushttps://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2009cv1575–44
Google Scholar
120 Matthews KR: Stem Cell Research: A Science and Policy Overview. Baker Institute for Public Policy, Houston, TX, USA (2009) www.bakerinstitute.org/publications/stemcell-intro-0208.pdf▪▪ This overview, which is updated annually, reviews the history of stem cell policy in the US. Created for a general audience, it also lists US state policies, as well as national policies from countries around the world.
Google Scholar
121 National Conference of State Legislators: Stem Cell Research www.ncsl.org/IssuesResearch/Health/EmbryonicandFetalResearchLaws/tabid/14413/Default.aspx
Google Scholar
122 South Dakota Statute Chapter 34–14 “Medical Research” http://legis.state.sd.us/statutes/DisplayStatute.aspx?Statute=34–14&Type=Statute
Google Scholar
123 California Institute of Regenerative Medicine www.cirm.ca.gov
Google Scholar
124 Louisiana Sec 14: 87.2 Human experimentation www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=78690
Google Scholar
125 Missouri Constitution, Article III, Section 38d, “Missouri Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative” 28 August (2009) www.moga.mo.gov/const/a03038d.htm
Google Scholar
126 National Science Board: Financial Research and Development Input. In: Science and Engineering Indicators 2010. National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA, USA (2010) www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind10/
Google Scholar
127 US Department of Health and Human Services: 2020: a new vision. A future for regenerative medicine. US DHHS, Washington DC, USA (2006) www.hhs.gov/reference/newfuture.shtml
Google Scholar
128 International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR): Guidelines for the Conduct of Human Embryonic Stem Cells (2006) www.isscr.org/guidelines/ISSCRhESCguidelines2006.pdf
Google Scholar
129 VCU Life Sciences Survey 2010 www.vcu.edu/lifesci/images2/survey2010.pdf
Google Scholar

Vol. 6, No. 1

Metrics

Downloaded 269 times

History

Published online 22 December 2010

Published in print January 2011

Information

Keywords

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the help of N Lane with reviewing the final manuscript and Rice students K Calhoun and J Luo for help preparing references.

Financial & competing interests disclosure

This article is based on discussions from the September 2009 event ‘Stem Cells: Saving Lives or Crossing Lines, Part V, Texas–UK Collaboration’and the conference report ‘Stem Cell Policy in the Obama Age’ [108,109]. Support for the event was provided by the Science Team (M Akrawi and C Santamaria) of the British Consulate-General Houston; Rice University’s TX–UK Collaborative (D Headon and L Ross); and the Baker Institute through the State of Qatar Endowment for International Stem Cell Policy. The authors have no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed.

No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.

PDF download

Stem cell policy in the Obama age: UK and US perspectives

Abstract

Bibliography