No abstract

Research using human embryos and embryoids has expanded in recent years due to technological advances. Surveying laws and guidelines among the top research and development (R&D) investing nations highlights existing barriers to expanding this area of research. Of the 22 nations surveyed, we found 12 countries with a 14-day limit, one with a seven-day limit, five with prohibitions and four without national laws or guidelines that limit or prohibit human embryo research. Sixteen national laws or guidelines define an embryo or related entities, with five nations limiting human embryoid research. Other laws are ambiguous in relation to embryoid research, leave unanswered questions regarding what research is permitted or restricted and need additional clarity for researchers.

This document collects together a number of reflections on the statutory time limit for maintaining human embryos in culture. This issue was raised for consideration at the Nuffield Council's annual 'forward look' meeting in February 2016. It was given an additional impetus the following month by the publication of research that suggested, for the first time, the possibility that embryos could be cultured for longer than 14 days (the current statutory limit in the UK). This led the Council to hold a workshop with the range of experts to discuss whether, after 25 years, there may be persuasive reasons to review this legal limit or whether the reasons for its introduction remain sound. * Professor Montgomery is Professor of Health Care Law, University College London and was Chair of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2012-17). A second set of arguments that were outside the scope of this piece of work but that would be relevant to a full reconsideration concern the relationship of the 14-day question to other social currents. We have already noted concerns about 'slippery slope' arguments that are held in some quarters. It is likely that any discussion of the embryo research rules would be affected by public confidence in the integrity of scientists. The experience of recent Parliamentary interventions, such as the developments in the regulation of mitochondrial replacement therapies, would also be 6 Legislation.gov.uk

Scientists have long been associated with religion's decline around the world. But little data permit analysis of the religiosity of scientists or their perceptions of the science-faith interface. Here we present the first ever survey data from biologists and physicists in eight regions around the world-France, Hong Kong, India, Italy, Taiwan, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States, countries and regions selected because they exhibit differing degrees of religiosity, varying levels of scientific infrastructure, and unique relationships between religious and state institutions (N = 9,422). The data collection includes biologists and physicists at all career stages from elite and non-elite universities and research institutes. We uncovered that in most of the national contexts studied, scientists are indeed more secular-in terms of beliefs and practices-than those in their respective general populations, although in four of the regional contexts, over half of scientists see themselves as religious. And surprisingly, scientists do not think science is in conflict with religion. Instead, most see religion and science as operating in separate spheres.

Stem cell-based models of embryos are known by various names, with different naming conventions, leading to confusion regarding their composition and potential. We propose the need for a general term for the field to promote public engagement and the development of a systematic nomenclature system to differentiate between specific models.

Umbilical cord blood transplants are now used to treat numerous types of immune- and blood-related disorders and genetic diseases. Cord blood (CB) banks play an important role in these transplants by processing and storing CB units. In addition to their therapeutic potential, these banks raise ethical and regulatory questions, especially in emerging markets in the Arab world. In this article, the authors review CB banking in five countries in the region, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates, selected for their different CB banking policies and initiatives. In assessing these case studies, the authors present regional trends and issues, including religious perspectives, policies, and demographic risk factors. This research suggests strong incentives for increasing the number of CB units that are collected from and available to Arab populations. In addition, the deficit in knowledge concerning public opinion and awareness in the region should be addressed to ensure educated decision-making.

BackgroundIn 2004, patient advocate groups were major players in helping pass and implement significant public policy and funding initiatives in stem cells and regenerative medicine. In the following years, advocates were also actively engaged in Washington DC, encouraging policy makers to broaden embryonic stem cell research funding, which was ultimately passed after President Barack Obama came into office. Many advocates did this because they were told stem cell research would lead to cures. After waiting more than 10 years, many of these same patients are now approaching clinics around the world offering experimental stem cell-based interventions instead of waiting for scientists in the US to complete clinical trials. How did the same groups who were once (and often still are) the strongest supporters of stem cell research become stem cell tourists? And how can scientists, clinicians, and regulators work to bring stem cell patients back home to the US and into the clinical trial process?DiscussionIn this paper, we argue that the continued marketing and use of experimental stem cell-based interventions is problematic and unsustainable. Central problems include the lack of patient protection, US liability standards, regulation of clinical sites, and clinician licensing. These interventions have insufficient evidence of safety and efficacy; patients may be wasting money and time, and they may be forgoing other opportunities for an intervention that has not been shown to be safe and effective. Current practices do not contribute to scientific progress because the data from the procedures are unsuitable for follow-up research to measure outcomes. In addition, there is no assurance for patients that they are receiving the interventions promised or of what dosage they are receiving. Furthermore, there is inconsistent or non-existent follow-up care. Public policy should be developed to correct the current situation.ConclusionThe current landscape of stem cell tourism should prompt a re-evaluation of current approaches to study cell-based interventions with respect to the design, initiation, and conduct of US clinical trials. Stakeholders, including scientists, clinicians, regulators and patient advocates, need to work together to find a compromise to keep patients in the US and within the clinical trial process. Using HIV/AIDS and breast cancer advocate cases as examples, we identify key priorities and goals for this policy effort.

It now seems technically feasible to culture human embryos beyond the “fourteen‐day limit,” which has the potential to increase scientific understanding of human development and perhaps improve infertility treatments. The fourteen‐day limit was adopted as a compromise but subsequently has been considered an ethical line. Does it remain relevant in light of technological advances permitting embryo maturation beyond it? Should it be changed and, if so, how and why? What justifications would be necessary to expand the limit, particularly given that doing so would violate some people's moral commitments regarding human embryos? Robust stakeholder engagement preceded adoption of the fourteen‐day limit and should arguably be part of efforts to reassess it. Such engagement could also consider the need for enhanced oversight of human embryo research. In the meantime, developing and implementing reliable oversight systems should help foster high‐quality research and public confidence in it .