Abstract
Few areas of recent research have received as much focus or generated as much excitement and debate as stem cell research. Hope for the therapeutic promise of this field has been matched by social concern associated largely with the sources of stem cells and their uses. This interplay between promise and controversy has contributed to the enormous variation that exists among the environments in which stem cell research is conducted throughout the world. This variation is layered upon intra-jurisdictional policies that are also often complex and in flux, resulting in what we term a ‘patchwork of patchworks’. This patchwork of patchworks and its implications will become increasingly important as we enter this new era of stem cell research. The current progression towards translational and clinical research among international collaborators serves as a catalyst for identifying potential policy conflict and makes it imperative to address jurisdictional variability in stem cell research environments. The existing patchworks seen in contemporary stem cell research environments provide a valuable opportunity to consider how variations in regulations and policies across and within jurisdictions influence research efficiencies and directions. In one sense, the stem cell research context can be viewed as a living experiment occurring across the globe. The lessons to be gleaned from examining this field have great potential for broad-ranging general science policy application.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The international workshop, “Lay of the Land”, took place in Montreal, PC on January 15–16, 2009, as part of a Stem Cell Network funded project, “The Stem Cell Research Environment: Drawing the Evidence and Experience Together”.
A condensed version of this article, entitled “International stem cell environments: a world of difference”, was published in Nature Reviews Stem Cells, online: 16 April 2009 | doi:10.1038/stemcells.2009.61.
References
Ogbogu, U., & Rugg-Gunn, P. (2008). The legal status of novel stem cell technologies in Canada. Journal of International Biotechnology Law, 5, 186–99. doi:10.1515/JIBL.2008.32.
Ogbogu, U., Caulfield, T., & Green, S. (2008). From human embryos to interspecies creations: ethical and legal uncertainties surrounding the creation of cytoplasmic hybrids for research. Medical Law International, 9, 227–44.
Hyun, I. (2008). Stem cells from skin cells: the ethical questions. Hastings Center Report, 38(1), 20–2. doi:10.1353/hcr.2008.0004.
Cohen, C. B., & Majmuder, M. (2009). Future directions for oversight of stem cell research in the United States. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 19(1), 79–100.
Pollack, A. (2009). F. D. A. Approves a stem cell trial. New York Times January 23, 2009. Accessed January 26, 2009 at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/23/business/23stem.html?_r=1.
Isasi, R., & Knoppers, B. (2006). Mind the gap: policy approaches to embryonic stem cell and cloning research in 50 countries. European Journal of Health Law, 13(1), 9–25. doi:10.1163/157180906777036328.
Isasi, R., & Knoppers, B. (2006). Beyond the permissibility of embryonic and stem cell research: substantive requirements and procedural safeguards. Human Reproduction, 21(10), 247481. doi:10.1093/humrep/del235.
Stayn, S. (2006). A guide to state laws on hESC research and a call for interstate dialogue. Medical Research Law and Policy Report, 5, 718.
Cohen, C. B. (2007). Renewing the stuff of life: Stem cells, ethics, and public policy (pp. 139–165). New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pardo, R., & Calvo, F. (2008). Attitudes toward embryo research, worldviews, and the moral status of the embryo frame. Science Communication, 30(1), 8–47. doi:10.1177/1075547008319432.
Javitt, G., Suthers, K., & Hudson, K. (2005). Cloning: A policy analysis. Washington DC: Genetics and public policy center.
Shepherd, R., et al. (2007). Towards an understanding of British public attitudes concerning human cloning. Social Science and Medicine, 65, 377–92. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.03.018.
Nisbet, M. (2005). The competition for worldviews: values, information, and public support for stem cell research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 17(1), 90–112. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edh058.
Critchley, C., & Turney, L. (2004). Understanding Australians’ perceptions of controversial scientific research. Australian Journal of Emerging Technologies and Society, 2(2), 82–107.
Gaskell, G., Einsiedel, E., Hallman, W., Priest, S., Jackson, J., & Oolsthoorn, J. (2005). Social values and the governance of science. Science, 310, 1908–9. doi:10.1126/science.1119444.
Downey, R., & Geransar, R. (2008). Stem cell research, publics, and stakeholder views. Health Law Review, 16(2), 70–85.
Caulfield, T., & Bubela, T. (2007). Why a criminal ban? Analyzing the arguments against somatic cell nuclear transfer in the Canadian parliamentary debate. American Journal of Bioethics, 7, 51–71. doi:10.1080/15265160601109655.
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (2009). Hybrids and Chimeras; A consultation on the ethical and social implications of creating human/animal embryos in research. 2007. Accessed January 27, 2009 at http://www.hfea.gov.uk/docs/HFEA_Final.pdf.
Heller, M., & Eisenberg, R. (1998). Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons in biomedical research. Science, 280, 698–701.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (2004). Patents and innovation: Trends and policy challenges. Accessed January 23, 2009 at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/48/12/24508541.pdf.
Crovitz, G. (2008). Patent gridlock surpasses innovation. The Wall Street Journal July 14, 2008. Accessed January 23, 2009 at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121599469382949593.html.
Harmon, S. (2007). Biotechnology innovation and patenting in the developing world: china—a giant among nations? Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 12, 72–85.
World Intellectual Property Organization (2004). World intellectual property handbook: Policy, law and use, 2nd Ed. WIPO Publication No. 489(E). Accessed January 26, 2009 at http://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/iprm/.
Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (2008). U.S. patent office issues certificates to uphold WARF stem cell patents. June 26, 2008. Accessed January 23, 2009 at http://www.warf.org/news/news.jsp?news_id=234.
European Patent Office (2009). Case number G 0002/06, decision of the enlarged board of appeal. Accessed January 23, 2009 at http://documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/eponet.nsf/0/428862B3DA9649A9C125750E002E8E94/$FILE/G0002_06_en.pdf.
Longaker, M., Baker, L., & Greely, H. (2007). Proposition 71 and CIRM—assessing the return on investment. Nature Biotechnology, 25(15), 513–21. doi:10.1038/nbt0507-513.
Caulfield, T., Ogbogu, U., & Isasi, R. (2007). Informed consent in embryonic stem cell research: are we following basic principles? Canadian Medical Association Journal, 176, 1722–5. doi:10.1503/cmaj.061675.
Caulfield, T., et al. (2007). Stem cell research ethics: consensus statement on emerging issues. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada, 29, 843–8.
Winickoff, D., Saha, K., & Graff, G. (2009). Opening stem cell research and development: a policy proposal for the management of data, intellectual property, and ethics. Yale Journal of Health Policy, Law and Ethics, 9, 52–127.
Sugarman, J., & Siegel, A. (2008). Research ethics: When embryonic stem cell lines fail to meet consent standards. Science, 322(5900), 379. doi:10.1126/science.1164441.
Isasi, R., & Knoppers, B. (2007). Monetary payments for the procurement of oocytes for stem cell research: In search of ethical and political consistency. Stem Cell Research, 1(1), 37–44. doi:10.1016/j.scr.2007.09.003.
Owen-Smith, J., & McCormick, J. (2006). An international gap in human ES cell research. Nature Biotechnology, 24(4), 391–2. doi:10.1038/nbt0406-391.
Levine, A. (2008). Identifying under-and overproducing countries in research related to human embryonic stem cells. Cell Stem Cell, 2, 521–4. doi:10.1016/j.stem.2008.05.008.
Caulfield, T., Ogbogu, U., Murdoch, C., & Einsiedel, E. (2008). Patents, commercialization and the Canadian stem cell community. Regenerative Medicine, 3(4), 483–96. doi:10.2217/17460751.3.4.483.
Gold, R., et al. (2004). The unexamined assumptions of intellectual property. Public Affairs Quarterly, 18, 299–344.
Scherer, F. (2002). The economics of human gene patents. Academic Medicine, 77, 1348–67. doi:10.1097/00001888-200212001-00006.
Bergman, K., & Graff, G. (2007). The global stem cell patent landscape: implications for efficient technology transfer and commercial development. Nature Biotechnology, 25, 419–24. doi:10.1038/nbt0407-419.
Van Looy, B., Debackere, K., Callaert, J., Tijssen, R., & van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Scientific capabilities and technological performance of national innovation systems: An exploration of emerging industrial relevant research domains. Scientometrics, 66(2), 295–310. doi:10.1007/s11192-006-0030-3.
Murray, F., & Stern, S. (2007). Do formal intellectual property rights hinder the free flow of scientific knowledge? An empirical test of the anti-commons hypothesis. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 63(4), 648–87. doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2006.05.017.
International Society for Stem Cell Research (2008). Guidelines for the clinical translation of stem cells. Accessed January 21, 2009 at http://www.isscr.org/clinical_trans/pdfs/ISSCRGLClinicalTrans.pdf.
Lau, D., Ogbogu, U., Taylor, B., Stafinski, T., Menon, D., & Caulfield, T. (2008). Stem cell clinics online: the direct-to-consumer portrayal of stem cell medicine. Cell Stem Cell, 3, 591–4. doi:10.1016/j.stem.2008.11.001.
Levine, A. (2006). Research policy and the mobility of US stem cell scientists. Nature Biotechnology, 24(7), 865–6. doi:10.1038/nbt0706-865.
Winickoff, D., Saha, K., & Graff, G. (2009). Opening stem cell research and development: a policy proposal for the management of data, intellectual property, and ethics. Yale Journal of Health Policy, Law and Ethics, 9, 52–127. at 75–88.
McCormick, J., Owen-Smith, J., & Scott, C. (2009). Distribution of human embryonic stem cell lines: who, when, and where. Cell Stem Cell, 4(2), 107–10. doi:10.1016/j.stem.2009.01.002.
Lomax, G., & McNab, A. (2008). Harmonizing standards and coding for hESC research. Cell Stem Cell, 2, 201–2. doi:10.1016/j.stem.2008.02.002.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the Canadian Stem Cell Network for its funding support. Special thanks also go to Christopher Scott, Bartha Knoppers and Cynthia Cohen.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Caulfield, T., Zarzeczny, A., McCormick, J. et al. The Stem Cell Research Environment: A Patchwork of Patchworks. Stem Cell Rev and Rep 5, 82–88 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12015-009-9071-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12015-009-9071-3