The Practical Consequences of a National Human Embryonic Stem Cell Registry

Berkeley Center for Law, Business and the Economy, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA.
Stem cell reviews (Impact Factor: 2.77). 12/2009; 5(4):315-8. DOI: 10.1007/s12015-009-9091-z
Source: PubMed


The executive order and issuance of federal guidelines for human embryonic stem cell research are positive developments and will produce long-term benefits by creating a new registry for hESC lines. But there may be short-term costs caused by regulatory uncertainty, procedural delay, and knock-on effects as national policies are adopted at state and local jurisdictions. Policymakers must ensure that national mechanisms of oversight for a new hESC registry are adequately funded, properly organized, transparent, and free of bureaucratic detail.

Download full-text


Available from: Christopher Thomas Scott,
    • "; and others), maternal–fetal conflicts , elective fetal surgery (Long 2000; Lyerly et al. 2007), rights of the previable and viable intrauterine patient (Anonymous 2006; Clune 2009; Cook and Dickens 2009; Matevosyan 2012b; Myser 2008; Strong 2005), adolescents' reproductive healthcare (Aruda et al. 2008), disclosure decisions (Hahn and Craft-Rosenberg 2002), emergency contraception (Cook et al. 2006), reproductive technologies (Niemelä 2010; Pellerin 2002; Sahinoglu-Pelin 2002; Turner 2009; Warnock 1987), in vitro fertilization (Gracia 1988; Hill 1987; Rosenthal 2010), human enhancement technologies (Athar 2008; Camby 2008; Park et al. 2009), oocyte donation (Letur- Könirsch 2004; Sills and Healy 2008), surrogacy (Dickens 2008; Pellegrino 1987; Shenfield 2005; Steinbock 1995), gene therapy (Park et al. 2009; Wolf et al. 2009), stem cell research and registry (Hyun 2010; Kress 2006; Latham 2009a; Mertes and Pennings 2009; Meyer and Fossett 2009; Pellerin 2002; Revel 2003; Taymor and Scott 2009), religion (Eberl 2009; Habgood 1985; Samtani et al. 2009; de Wachter 2004), public health ethics (Agarwal et al. 2007; Evans 1993; Pellegrino 1987), and others. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The objectives of this study were (1) to elucidate ethical priorities in reproductive health in studies published between 1986 and 2012, and (2) to address the place of clinical ethics in reproductive health knowledge economy through comparative analysis of country-based ethical vignettes and practices. A total of 101 studies are identified through the PubMed portal. Recruited studies are inclusive for their focus and level of evidence (I, II-1, 2, 3). Pooled prevalence of the ethical problems, their approximate determinants, and outcomes are modeled as measurable outcomes. Ethical debates are correlated with the extrapolated maternal and perinatal mortality rates. Calculations use cases as units of analysis. This meta-study prioritizes the following ethical issues: patient’s autonomy, adolescent pregnancy, fetal surgery, cross-border reproduction, health insurance constraints, surrogacy, stem cell registry, and reproductive health in mentally ill. Clinical pregnancy rate from the transferred embryos is 17–22 %. Sixty percent of couples consent for posthumous reproduction, and 47 % consent for fetal surgeries for the nonlethal conditions; 48.2 % of pregnant adolescents choose to continue their pregnancy, 45 % opt to terminate, and 6 % miscarry. Abortion debates take pro-choice (66.7%), pro-life (6.7 %), and balanced (26.7 %) arguments. No correlations are found between presented ethical problems, maternal and perinatal mortality ratios per country (r 2 = 0.117–0.209). Structurally too, the cost of prime knowledge products, like reproductive health education—has tripled adjusted for inflation. Nevertheless, the relative power of the costs for the malpractices and adverse outcomes against knowledge products remains assuredly higher. An accurate definition of the ethical norms is essential and may impact on the reproductive health knowledge economy on both system and case levels. At the system level, it promotes a moral foundation to maximize welfare; at the case level, it assists physicians in identifying and resolving ethical issues to minimize legal aid expenses.
    Journal of the Knowledge Economy 01/2013; 6(4). DOI:10.1007/s13132-012-0138-z
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Since their derivation 11 years ago, human embryonic stem (hES) cells have become a powerful tool in both basic biomedical research and developmental biology. Their capacity for self-renewal and differentiation into any tissue type has also brought interest from fields such as cell therapy and drug screening. We conducted an extensive analysis of 750 papers (51% of the total published about hES cells between 1998 and 2008) to present a spectrum of hES cell research including culture protocols developed worldwide. This review may stimulate discussions about the importance of having unvarying methods to culture hES cells, in order to facilitate comparisons among data obtained by research groups elsewhere, especially concerning preclinical studies. Moreover, the description of the most widely used cell lines, reagents, and procedures adopted internationally will help newcomers on deciding the best strategies for starting their own studies. Finally, the results will contribute with the efforts of stem cell researchers on comparing the performance of different aspects related to hES cell culture methods.
    Cell Transplantation 05/2010; 19(5):509-23. DOI:10.3727/096368909X485067 · 3.13 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Besides their putative usage for therapies, stem cells are a promising tool for functional studies of genes involved in human genetic diseases or oncogenesis. For this purpose induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells can be derived from patients harbouring specific mutations. In contrast to adult stem cells, iPS cells are pluripotent and can efficiently be grown in culture. However, iPS cells are modulated due to the ectopic induction of pluripotency, harbour other somatic mutations accumulated during the life span of the source cells, exhibit only imperfectly cleared epigenetic memory of the source cell, and are often genomically instable. In addition, iPS cells from patients only allow the investigation of mutations, which are not prenatally lethal. Embryonic stem (ES) cells have a high proliferation and differentiation potential, but raise ethical issues. Human embryos, which are not transferred in the course of in vitro fertilization, because of preimplantation genetic diagnosis of a genetic defect, are still rarely donated for the establishment of ES cell lines. In addition, their usage for studies on gene functions for oncogenesis is hampered by the fact the ES cells are already tumorigenic per se. In 2003 amniotic fluid stem (AFS) cells have been discovered, which meanwhile have been demonstrated to harbour the potential to differentiate into cells of all three germ layers. Monoclonal human AFS cell lines derived from amniocenteses have a high proliferative potential, are genomically stable and are not associated with ethical controversies. Worldwide amniocenteses are performed for routine human genetic diagnosis. We here discuss how generation and banking of monoclonal human AFS cell lines with specific chromosomal aberrations or monogenic disease mutations would allow to study the functional consequences of disease causing mutations. In addition, recently a protocol for efficient and highly reproducible siRNA-mediated long-term knockdown of endogenous gene functions in AFS cells was established. Since AFS cells are not tumorigenic, gene modulations not only allow to investigate the role of endogenous genes involved in human genetic diseases but also may help to reveal putative oncogenic gene functions in different biological models, both in vitro and in vivo. This concept is discussed and a "proof of principle", already obtained via modulating genes involved in the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) pathway in AFS cells, is presented.
    Oncotarget 09/2011; 2(9):705-12. DOI:10.18632/oncotarget.328 · 6.36 Impact Factor
Show more