Ethos and Economics: Examining the Rationale Underlying Stem Cell and Cloning Research Policies in the United States, Germany, and Japan

Abstract

The governance of reproductive science is fraught with controversy in nearly every jurisdiction across the globe. Worldwide, legislators and policy makers have struggled to craft meaningful and ethical parameters for the regulation of this new and evolving area of biotechnology. In most countries, it is agreed that some form of regulatory oversight over reproductive technologies is necessary. There is far less consensus, however, as to the type of regulatory structure that should be established. Recent debates over reproductive science have focused on two of the most controversial practices in this area: embryonic stem cell research and cloning technology. Specifically, interested parties have struggled over whether these practices are so egregious that they should be altogether prohibited, or whether they ought to be permitted, but subject to particular legislative limits and regulatory oversight.The difficulties that most countries have experienced in devising legislation pertaining to embryonic stem cell and cloning research emanate from the moral ambiguity that characterizes this area of science.

Organizational Reputation and Jurisdictional Claims: The Case of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration

“…While determining that human cloning of DNA, cells, tissues, and nonhuman animals using the novel technology was not unethical, it also found human cloning to be morally problematic. The report agreed that federal funds should not be allocated to science oriented toward human reproductive cloning, and private researchers were urged to adhere to the voluntary moratorium established by President Clinton (Campbell 2005). The climax of public and professional concern was reached when a Chicago physicist announced at a December 1997 scientific conference that he was ready, willing, and able to clone humans as soon as he raised the necessary funding (Silberner 1998, 5).…”

Institutional operating figures in basic and applied sciences: Scientometric analysis of quantitative output benchmarking

“…These areas are i.e. neuroscience [ 13 ], cardiovascular medicine [ 14 ], gastroenterology [ 15 ], immunology [ 16 ], genetics [ 17 ], molecular biology [ 18 - 20 ] or stem cell research [ 21 - 23 ]. Next to the existing literature for these major fields of research there are also data available for smaller areas such as history of medicine [ 24 ], medical education [ 25 ], nursing sciences [ 26 , 27 ], reproductive health [ 28 ] or rehabilitation sciences [ 29 , 30 ].…”

Mind the Gap: Policy Approaches to Embryonic Stem Cell and Cloning Research in 50 Countries

“…Those traditions, values and interests "operate symbiotically in the crafting of legislative parameters for stem cell and cloning science." 30 Within this category, legislative approaches can range from liberal to restrictive (both of which use administrative oversight), and usually involve criminal prohibitions. For example, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Japan, and the United Kingdom, with different degrees of permissiveness and oversight, have enacted comprehensive laws regulating and setting conditions for embryonic, stem cell, and cloning research.…”