But this would be self regulation in the public eye, not behind t

But this would be self regulation in the public eye, not behind the closed doors of a conference retreat, self-regulation which would be critiqued in newspapers and leading journals, and would answer, or obviously fail to answer, the stated concerns of diverse members of the public, and government members of all parties and persuasions, and globally so, not just locally. So while U.S. law fumbled on, coarsely translating ethical nuance into

what to fund, and nations and states diverged, extraordinary discussion check details bypassed the ordinary organs of democratic government. Mechanisms for the generation of standards evolved. Some, like standards of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS), were precise, MDV3100 molecular weight professional, and not initially particularly democratic, involving the application of proficient and conscientious

expertise to creating standards for the ethical conduct of stem cell research, addressing problems perceived and, with deep insight, some yet to be perceived. The standards of the International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR) (Daley et al., 2007, Hyun et al., 2008 and Taylor et al., 2010) was a comparable effort, but with four significant differences. First, the effort was deliberately global from inception to application. Second, it invited public comment. The result of the latter was unmistakable: drafts and redrafts, discussions and rediscussions, around how problems and solutions were perceived and articulated, and whether justifications spoke not only to those who would agree, but to

those who would disagree; if not persuasive, then at least arguments were taken seriously. Third, it conceived ethics broadly, addressing not just laboratory minutiae, but very social justice in research choices, broad access to stem cell therapies, and intellectual property and data sharing among haves and have-nots. It translated theory into imperatives, so the norm of universal sharing, explicitly expressed, was translated into specific institutional obligations and concrete applications like model consent documents and model materials transfer agreements, which were transparent for public feedback. Fourth, longitudinally, it did not stop at the lab door, but tried to trace the trajectory from basic research through translation to clinical research, medical innovation, and—their snake-oil-bearing, false cousin—the sale of unproven therapies as cures to desperate patients and their families. The ISSCR and NAS were hardly alone in this effort (Taylor, 2010). Leading journals not only publicized these efforts, but critiqued them, directly and indirectly, and countered. Some government agencies, particularly in the U.K., experimented and taught, while other government branches inquired and challenged.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>