Stem cells: public policy and ethics.

New Zealand bioethics journal Pub Date : 2004-02-01
Cindy R Towns, D Gareth Jones
{"title":"Stem cells: public policy and ethics.","authors":"Cindy R Towns,&nbsp;D Gareth Jones","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Debate on the regulation of human stem cells needs to bring together scientific, ethical and policy considerations if it is to be adequately informed. Scientific issues of importance include the relevance of the environment in appreciating the extent of stem cell plasticity, and the relative potential of embryonic and adult stem cells to produce other cell types. An awareness that blastocysts (early embryos) and stem cells in the laboratory are pluripotential and not totipotential has implications for ethical and policy debate. The regulations on stem cell research are reviewed, showing that four positions have emerged. Position A corresponds to the prohibition of all embryo research, position B confines the use of embryonic stem cells to those currently in existence and therefore extracted prior to some specified date, position C allows for the use and ongoing isolation of embryonic stem cells from surplus in vitro fertilization embryos, and position D approves of the creation of human embryos specifically for research. Position B which has been adopted by the United States, Germany, and Australia (with subtle differences between them) and which is regarded as a compromise position, is critiqued. This is principally on the basis that, in spite of claims made about it, the ongoing destruction of human embryos will continue. This is because these countries allow in vitro fertilization programs, inherent within which is embryo destruction. It is argued that position C would be a more consistent ethical position for these countries. The possibility of moving to position D is also raised.</p>","PeriodicalId":87199,"journal":{"name":"New Zealand bioethics journal","volume":"5 1","pages":"22-8"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2004-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"New Zealand bioethics journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Debate on the regulation of human stem cells needs to bring together scientific, ethical and policy considerations if it is to be adequately informed. Scientific issues of importance include the relevance of the environment in appreciating the extent of stem cell plasticity, and the relative potential of embryonic and adult stem cells to produce other cell types. An awareness that blastocysts (early embryos) and stem cells in the laboratory are pluripotential and not totipotential has implications for ethical and policy debate. The regulations on stem cell research are reviewed, showing that four positions have emerged. Position A corresponds to the prohibition of all embryo research, position B confines the use of embryonic stem cells to those currently in existence and therefore extracted prior to some specified date, position C allows for the use and ongoing isolation of embryonic stem cells from surplus in vitro fertilization embryos, and position D approves of the creation of human embryos specifically for research. Position B which has been adopted by the United States, Germany, and Australia (with subtle differences between them) and which is regarded as a compromise position, is critiqued. This is principally on the basis that, in spite of claims made about it, the ongoing destruction of human embryos will continue. This is because these countries allow in vitro fertilization programs, inherent within which is embryo destruction. It is argued that position C would be a more consistent ethical position for these countries. The possibility of moving to position D is also raised.

干细胞:公共政策与伦理。
关于人类干细胞调控的辩论需要将科学、伦理和政策方面的考虑结合起来,才能得到充分的信息。重要的科学问题包括环境与干细胞可塑性程度的相关性,以及胚胎和成体干细胞产生其他细胞类型的相对潜力。意识到实验室中的囊胚(早期胚胎)和干细胞是多能的,而不是全能的,这对伦理和政策辩论有影响。对有关干细胞研究的规定进行了审查,结果出现了4种立场。立场A对应于禁止所有胚胎研究,立场B将胚胎干细胞的使用限制在目前存在的,因此在某个特定日期之前提取的胚胎干细胞,立场C允许使用和持续分离体外受精胚胎中剩余的胚胎干细胞,立场D批准创造专门用于研究的人类胚胎。被认为是妥协立场的美国、德国、澳大利亚(三者之间存在细微差别)采取的B立场受到了批评。这主要是基于这样一个事实,即尽管有人提出了这样的主张,但正在进行的对人类胚胎的破坏将继续下去。这是因为这些国家允许体外受精项目,其内在是胚胎破坏。有人认为,立场C将是这些国家更一致的道德立场。移动到位置D的可能性也增加了。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信