Search Results

Human embryonic stem cells are pluripotent and can produce the entire range of major somatic cell lineage of the central nervous system and thus form an important source for cell-based therapy of various neurological diseases. Despite their potential use in regenerative medicine, the progress is hampered by difficulty in their use because of safety issues and lack of proper protocols to obtain purified populations of specified neuronal cells. Most neurological conditions such as spinal cord injury and Parkinson's disease involve damages to projection neurons. Similarly, certain cell populations may be depleted after repeated episodes of attacks such as the myelinating oligodendrocytes in multiple sclerosis. Motoneurons are the key effector cell type for control of motor function, and loss of motoneurons is associated with a number of debilitating diseases such as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and spinal muscular atrophy; hence, repair of such neurological conditions may require transplantation with exogenous cells.

This chapter focuses on patents covering human embryonic stem cells in the United States and Europe. In both places, human embryonic stem cell research is very controversial; anti-abortion activists argue that the human embryo destruction required to produce human embryonic stem cells is morally unacceptable. Given this context, it is easy to assume that the two jurisdictions might handle these patents the same way, or at least that their discussions over the matter would be similar. To the contrary. This chapter demonstrates that by the 2000s, when the human embryonic stem cell debates began, the US and European patent systems had rather different political environments. They were focused on different kinds of concerns and included different experts and stakeholders. The debates were also framed differently. In the United States, the main issue was whether human embryonic stem cell patents stifled innovation, challenging the central logic of the patent system. Academic scientists became the main stakeholders. But in Europe, life, its commodification, and human dignity were still the main concerns. And civil society groups such as No Patents on Life and Greenpeace had become central, stable watchdogs in the European patent system.

This dialogue provides a fictional account of a panel discussion held at the Royal Society headquarters in London, about the international ramifications of the ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union in the case Brüstle v Greenpeace. According to the Court, patenting embryonic stem cells is unethical and therefore illegal. Any patents already awarded are to be withdrawn. The discussion is moderated by Dr. Rebecca Franklin. Other members of the panel are Hans Weninger, a scientist at the University of Bonn whose colleague filed a patent on turning human embryonic stem cells into neural cells to treat neurological defects; Bettina Andrews, a lawyer and legal scholar specializing in the European Union; and Jacques Penoir, a consultant to Greenpeace International and an activist bioethicist. They tackle the ethics and politics of patenting embryonic stem cells; Greenpeace's numerous challenges to patents in biotechnology; the power behind “ordre public” in EU law; and the German Federal Patent Court's decision declaring patent claims on human embryonic stem cell lines illegal.

In this dialogue, Bernard Stein, M.D., and Dr. Rebecca Franklin are having a conversation about President George W. Bush's policies on human embryonic stem cells. Stein is an ethics advisor to Bush, head of a national bioethics advisory panel, and a leading scholar on reproductive ethics. Here he and Franklin discuss how U.S. policy on stem cells evolved, particularly with regards to federal policy on human embryos; the peculiarities of the bifurcated system of ethics in the United States—one set of principles for public funding and another for private funding; Bush's restricted collection of stem cell lines—the president's stem cells; the opposition of scientists to the Bush administration's position concerning the moral status of embryos; and Bush's refusal to provide public funds for embryonic stem cell research.

There is a myth that religious people do not like technology, whether it is the Internet, social media, or medical technologies. In fact, religious people’s concerns with many technologies mirror those of nonreligious people. As for social media, for instance, religious people fear what these technologies can do to relationships. And yet religious people support these technologies for the ways they can grow, strengthen, and connect communities of faith. While religious people are not unique in their concerns about many technologies, there are a few that concern religious people, in particular: reproductive genetic technologies (RGTs), in vitro fertilization (IVF), and human embryonic stem-cell (hESC) research. Biomedical technologies, specifically those related to “human enhancement,” tend to intersect directly with faith and can cause tension with religious groups. In other words, people of faith have theological concerns about these technologies because they seem to have implications for who God is and who human beings are and what it means to have a good life.

In this dialogue, Dr. Rebecca Franklin and German scientist Gordon Baum discuss the politics and ethics of stem cells. Franklin is interested in how German scientists view their responsibility to the law and ethical norms while they investigate the medical benefits of human embryonic stem cells (hESCs). She wants to understand why Germany does not permit scientists to destroy embryos in order to derive stem cells. Here she and Baum discuss the sharp legal and moral divisions over the use of hESCs; Germany's history of eugenics; the ethical dimensions of destroying human embryos; whether it is immoral for one country to use imported hESCs that have been acquired from destroyed embryos in another country; and whether it is ethically justifiable for scientists to use hESCs from a black market source for research designed to find the cause of and treatment for diseases.

This book has explored the science and ethics behind stem cells, as well as the excitement and optimism within the scientific community about the role stem cells would someday play in treating human disease. It has revealed many intersecting voices expressing the hopes and dreams of the afflicted, as well as the cautions of those following their moral compass on the use and commercialization of human embryos in research and medicine. The first extraction of human embryonic stem cells brought new excitement into an old medical agenda. Whether it was through embryonic stem cells, induced pluripotent stem cells, or nuclear transfer, the enthusiasm among cell biologists was palpable. This book has also emphasized the two distinct parts of the stem cell research translational program: regenerative medicine and personalized medicine.

This dialogue provides a fictional account of the arguments heard before the three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia regarding Sherley v. Sebelius—a challenge to the executive order issued by President Barack Obama allowing federal funds to be used for human embryonic stem cell research, as long as it uses only excess in vitro fertilization (IVF) embryos. The discussion is centered on the so-called Dickey-Wicker Amendment, which prohibits federal funds to be spent on research that involves the destruction of human embryos. In August 2009 the appellants and their amici filed a complaint against the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the National Institutes of Health (NIH), seeking relief from the NIH guidelines authorizing the funding of research involving human embryonic stem cells.

This chapter analyzes the politics of human embryonic stem cell (hESC) research in Italy. It demonstrates how political abstinence reinforced the position of a church whose injunctions of sexual abstinence were seemingly too well heeded in a nation with a famously declining birth rate. It looks closely at Italian Law 40 and its provisions. This law marked the beginning of the Italian politics of hESC research. The chapter shows that Italy’s national soul searching on the pitfalls of stem cell technologies took the form of lessons about human genomes and excursions into human biology. It suggests that hESCs became the symbols of a battle for rights that peaked in an abrogative referendum.

In this dialogue, Dr. Rebecca Franklin and fellow feminist, twenty-five-year-old activist Jenny Gunderson, discuss the ways in which women relate to the moral status of human embryos. The feminist movements evolved through three stages, sometimes referred to as waves. The first wave of feminism was a human rights movement; the second wave focused on reproductive rights, self-help, self-determination, sexual power, consciousness raising, and economic opportunity for women; the third wave emphasized empowerment over sisterhood. Dr. Franklin considers herself a second-wave feminist and has always supported a woman's right to abortion. Gunderson is affiliated with a women's health group devoted to protecting women from “eggsploitation,” or the commercialization of their eggs, and its impact on women's health. Here she expresses her stand about deriving human embryonic stem cells without human eggs.

This chapter examines moral issues associated with human embryonic stem cell (ESC) research. Critics claim that the benefits of ESC research must be forgone because destroying embryos shows disrespect for their moral importance. It is argued that their conclusion is founded on an implausible view of the moral importance of embryos. The correct conclusion is not that we can use human embryos however we want, but that we have no reason to forgo the large benefits that doctors and scientists expect will follow from research on human ESCs.

This chapter outlines some more general observations about the nature of bioconstitutionalism and its possible evolution in the twenty-first century. It emphasizes the book’s contributions to legal and social theory, bioethics, and political thought. It highlights the mutual interpolation of the texts of law and the “texts” of DNA. It shows that Germany and Italy initially assimilated the human embryonic stem cell to the human. This chapter provides compelling insights into the conflicts that must be resolved if biopower is to be more democratically aligned with the expectations that people legitimately cherish about their bodies and selves.

Italy is an overwhelmingly Catholic nation. Roman Catholicism is pervasive in Italy and an integral part of Italian culture. Because of this, most Italian scientists are of the same faith background, at least raised nominally Catholic. The majority of Italian scientists identify as Roman Catholic and also see themselves as at least slightly religious. The majority of scientists also believe in God or some form of higher power. They see Catholicism as relatively free from conflict with science, but are critical of what they see as its occasional intrusions into science-related policies. Most Italian scientists also see religion as totally separate from science. Nevertheless, the Italian context also provides opportunities for dialogue between science and religion, which could be a model for other countries.