Comparative analysis reveals contrasting emotional influences on stem cell governance across four nations, suggesting cultural implications.
In August 2004, Stojkovic and Murdoch from the University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, were granted the UK's first license to create human embryonic stem cells (hESCs) using cell nuclear replacement. While this news made headlines around the globe, a spokesman for the German Ministry of Research warned scientists in his country of the illegality of advising their English colleagues on hESC research. Meanwhile, US Members of Congress had asked President Bush to revoke his decision to limit federal funding to research on a limited number of hESC lines created before 9 August, 2001 (a decision that he confirmed in July 2006, while nonfederally funded research on hESC continues to be unrestricted). In Israel, where hESC research is legal and has never been a contested political issue, a bioethicist argued that, in light of the potential to alleviate human suffering, "banning research is against human dignity". How can such striking differences in the regulation of hESC research be explained?
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gottweis et al. (2006) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: