Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ethical, Legal and Social Implications of Translational Stem Cell Research: Effects of Commercialization on Public Opinion and Trust of Stem Cell Research

  • Chapter
Translational Stem Cell Research

Part of the book series: Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine ((STEMCELL))

Abstract

We conduct a systematic review of studies of public opinion regarding stem cell research in Canada, US and the UK, and analyze the implications of findings for research governance. In particular, we examine and analyze available data on public trust of efforts aimed at promoting and commercializing stem cell research, and suggest strategies for managing public expectations, concerns, and attitudes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 229.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See the discussion on induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells below.

  2. 2.

     The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently approved the first known human clinical trials for medical treatment of spinal cord injuries derived from embryonic stem cells [28]. However, the trials have been put on hold for safety reasons [29].

  3. 3.

     Negative public opinion was cited as justification for the ban in the AHRA on certain aspects of SCR, despite the existence of public opinion data showing the contrary.

  4. 4.

     A similar Florida initiative did not make the ballot. See http://election.dos.state.fl.us/initiatives/initdetail.asp%3Faccount%20%3D%2041859%26seqnum%20%3D%201.

  5. 5.

     The term “commercialization” is used widely in the literature, oftentimes in a manner that hints at a negative connotation of the term, namely an emphasis on procuring financial gain or profit at the expense of value or quality. Here, the term more properly connotes any activity or process that “transforms knowledge and technology into new goods, processes or services to satisfy market demands” [55].

References

  1. Government of Canada. Public opinion research into biotechnology issues, 5th wave, May 2001 [monograph on the internet]. Ottawa: Canadian Biotechnology Secretariat; 2001 [cited 2009 Nov 26]. Available from: http://www.bioportal.gc.ca/english/view.asp?x  =  550.

  2. Government of Canada. Public opinion research into biotechnology issues, 6th wave, June 2002 [monograph on the internet]. Ottawa: Canadian Biotechnology Secretariat; 2002 [cited 2009 Nov 26]. Available from: http://www.bioportal.gc.ca/english/view.asp?x  =  548.

  3. Government of Canada. Public opinion research into biotechnology issues, 8th wave, March 2003 [monograph on the internet]. Ottawa: Canadian Biotechnology Secretariat; 2003 [cited 2009 Nov 26]. Available from: http://www.bioportal.gc.ca/english/view.asp?x  =  546.

  4. Government of Canada. A Canada-US public opinion research study on emerging ­technologies – report of findings, March 2005 [monograph on the internet]. Ottawa: Canadian Biotechnology Secretariat & Industry Canada; 2005 [cited 2009 Nov 26]. Available from: http://www.bioportal.gc.ca/english/view.asp?x  =  721.

  5. Government of Canada. Emerging technologies tracking research, June 2006 [monograph on the internet]. Ottawa: Industry Canada; 2006 [cited 2009 Nov 26]. Available from: http://www.bioportal.gc.ca/english/view.asp?x  =  837&all  =  true#494.

  6. U.K. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. Hybrids and chimeras: A report on the findings of the consultation, October 2007 [monograph on the internet]. London: Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority; 2007 [cited 2009 Nov 26]. Available from: http://www.hfea.gov.uk/docs/Hybrids_Report.pdf.

  7. U.K. Human Genetics Advisory Commission, Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. Cloning issues in reproduction, science and medicine [monograph on the internet]. London: Human Genetics Advisory Commission & Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority; 1998 [cited 2009 Nov 26]. Available from: http://www.hfea.gov.uk/docs/Cloning_Issue_Report.pdf.

  8. U.K. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. Donating eggs for research – ­safeguarding donors: A report on the HFEA consultation [monograph on the internet]. London: Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority; 2006 [cited 2009 Nov 26]. Available from: http://www.hfea.gov.uk/docs/donating_eggs_for_research_safeguarding_donors_report.pdf.

  9. The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. Survey report: Public praises science; scientists fault public, media, July 9 2009 [monograph on the internet]. Washington, DC: The Pew Research Center; 2009. Available from: http://people-press.org/report/528/.

  10. Gaskell G, Stares S, Allansdottir A, Allum N, Corchero C, Fischler C, et al. Europeans and biotechnology in 2005: Patterns and trends final report on Eurobarometer 64.3, July 2006 [monograph on the internet]. European Commission; 2006. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_244b_en.pdf.

  11. Einsiedel E, Premji S, Geransar S, Orton NC, Thavaratnam T, Bennett LK. Diversity in public views toward stem cell sources and policies. Stem Cell Rev and Rep. 2009; 5:102–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Nisbet MC. The Competition for worldviews: Values, information, and public support for stem cell research. Int J Publ Opin Res. 2005; 17: 90–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Nisbet MC. The polls – trends: Public opinion about stem cell research and human cloning. Public Opin Quart. 2004; 68:131–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Pardo R, Calvo F. Attitudes toward embryo research, worldviews, and the moral status of the embryo frame. Sci Commun. 2008; 30:8–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Downey R, Geransar R. Stem cell research, publics’ and stakeholder views. Health Law Rev. 2008; 16:69–85.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Critchley C. Understanding Australians’ perceptions of controversial scientific research. Aust J Emerg Technol Soc. 2004; 2:82–107.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Shepherd R, Barnett J, Cooper H, Coyle A, Moran-Ellis J, Senior V, et al. Towards an understanding of British public attitudes concerning human cloning. Soc Sci Med. 2007; 65:377–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ho SS, Brossard D, Scheufele DA. Effects of value predispositions, mass media use, and knowledge on public attitudes toward embryonic stem cell research. Int J Publ Opin Res. 2008; 20:171–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Lysagt T, Ankeny R, Kerridge I. The scope of public discourse surrounding proposition 71: Looking beyond the moral status of the embryo. Bioethic Inq 2006; 3:109–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Ogbogu U, Rugg-Gunn P. The legal status of novel stem cell technologies in Canada. J Int Biotechnol Law 2008; 5:186–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Stojkovic M, Stojkovic P, Leary C, Hall VJ, Armstrong L, Herbert M, et al. Derivation of a human blastocyst after heterologous nuclear transfer to donated oocytes. Reprod Biomed Online 2005; 11:226–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Beyhan Z, Iager AE, Cibelli JB. Interspecies nuclear transfer: Implications for embryonic stem cell biology. Cell Stem Cell 2007; 1:502–12.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Chen Y, He ZX, Liu A, Wang K, Mao WW, Chu JX, et al. Embryonic stem cells generated by nuclear transfer of human somatic nuclei into rabbit oocytes. Cell Res. 2003; 13:251–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Chan AW, Dominko T, Luetjens CM, Neuber E, Martinovich C, Hewitson L, et al. Clonal propagation of primate offspring by embryo splitting. Science 2000 Jan 14; 287:317–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Rossant J. Postimplantation development of blastomeres isolated from 4- and 8-cell mouse eggs. J Embryol Exp Morphol. 1976; 36:283–90.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Moore NW, Adams CE, Rowson LE. Developmental potential of single blastomeres of the rabbit egg. J Reprod Fertil. 1968; 17:527–31.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Zarzeczny A, Caulfield T. Emerging ethical, legal and social issues associated with stem cell research and the current role of the moral status of the embryo. Stem Cell Rev and Rep. 2009; 5:96–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Pollack A. F.D.A. approves a stem cell trial. New York Times, 2009 Jan 23. Available from: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/23/business/23stem.html?_r  =  1&adxnnl  =  1&adxnnlx  =  1259265630-e20fin/9DlTL  +  BJXJd66hw.

  29. Geron comments on FDA hold on spinal cord injury trial. News release, 2009 Aug 27. California: Geron Corporation. Available from: http://www.geron.com/media/pressview.aspx?id  =  1188.

  30. Isasi RM, Knoppers BM. Beyond the permissibility of embryonic and stem cell research: Substantive requirements and procedural safeguards. Hum Reprod. 2006; 21:2474–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Takahashi K, Yamanaka S. Induction of pluripotent stem cells from mouse embryonic and adult fibroblast cultures by defined factors. Cell 2006; 126:663–76.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Takahashi K, Tanabe K, Ohnuki M, Narita M, Ichisaka T, Tomoda K, Yamanaka S. Induction of pluripotent stem cells from adult human fibroblasts by defined factors. Cell 2007; 131:861–72.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Kim D, Kim C, Moon J, Chung Y, Chang M, Han B, et al. Generation of human induced pluripotent stem cells by direct delivery of reprogramming proteins. Cell Stem Cell 2009; 4:472–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Woltjen K, Michael IP, Mohseni P, Desai R, Mileikovsky M, Hämäläinen R, et al. PiggyBac transposition reprograms fibroblasts to induced pluripotent stem cells. Nature 2009; 458:766–70.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Isasi RM, Knoppers BM. Mind the gap: Policy approaches to embryonic stem cell and cloning research in 50 countries. Eur J Health Law 2006; 13:9–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Caulfield T, Zarzeczny A, McCormick J, Bubela T, Critchley C, Einsiedel E, et al. The Stem cell research environment: A patchwork of patchworks. Stem Cell Rev and Rep. 2009; 5:82–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Bubela T, Nisbet MC, Borchelt R, Brunger F, Critchley C, Einsiedel E, et al. Science communication reconsidered. Nat Biotechnol. 2009; 27:514–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Nisbet MC, Mooney C. Framing science. Science 2007; 316:56.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Government of Canada. Summary of public opinion research into biotechnology issues in Canada [monograph on the internet]. Ottawa: Canadian Biotechnology Secretariat [cited 2009 Nov 26]. Available from: http://www.bioportal.gc.ca/english/view.asp?x  =  543.

  40. National Conference of State Legislatures [stem cell research page on the internet] [updated January 2008; cited 2009 Nov 26]. Available from: http://www.ncsl.org/IssuesResearch/Health/EmbryonicandFetalResearchLaws/tabid/14413/Default.aspx.

  41. The President, Executive order 13435 – Expanding approved stem cell lines in ethically responsible ways, U.S. Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 120, 2007 Jun 22.

    Google Scholar 

  42. The President, Executive order 13505 – Removing barriers to responsible scientific research involving human stem cells, U.S. Federal Register, Vol. 74, No. 46, 2009 Mar 11.

    Google Scholar 

  43. National Institutes of Health. Guidelines on human stem cell research [monograph on the internet]. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health, 2009. Available from: http://stemcells.nih.gov/policy/2009guidelines.htm.

  44. Callus T. Patient perception of the human fertilisation and embryology authority. Med Law Rev. 2007; 15:62–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Caulfield T, Ogbogu U, Isasi R. Informed consent in embryonic stem cell research: Are we following basic principles? CMAJ 2007; 176:1722–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Ogbogu U. The regulation of conflicts of interest in the Canadian stem cell research environment. Health Law Rev. 2008; 16:41–55.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Government of Canada. Canada/U.S. Tracking Survey, March 2004 [monograph on the internet]. Ottawa: Canadian Biotechnology Secretariat; 2004 [cited 2009 Nov 26]. Available from: http://www.bioportal.gc.ca/english/view.asp?x  =  588.

  48. Fisher D, Atkinson-Grosjean J, House D. Changes in academy/industry/state relations in Canada: The creation and development of the Networks of Centres of Excellence. Minerva 2001; 39:299–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Godin B, Doré C, Larivière V. The production of knowledge in Canada: Consolidation and diversification. J Can Stud. 2002; 37:56–70.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Ebers M, Powell WW. Biotechnology: Its origins, organization, and outputs. Res Policy 2007; 36:433–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Caulfield T. Sustainability and the balancing of the health care and innovation agendas: The commercialization of genetic research. Sask Law Rev. 2003; 66:629–45.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Caulfield T. The commercialization of human genetics: A discussion of issues relevant to the Canadian consumer. J Consum Pol.1998; 21:483–526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Networks of Centres of Excellence Online [homepage on the Internet]. Ottawa, Canada [updated 2010 Jan 5; cited 2010 Jan 5]. Available from: www.nce-rce.gc.ca.

  54. Government of Canada. Networks of Centres of Excellence program guide May 2009 [monograph on the internet]. Ottawa: Networks of Centres of Excellence [cited 2010 Jan 5]. Available from: http://www.nce-rce.gc.ca/_docs/competitions/ClosedCompetitions-ConcoursTermines/NCE2009/network_Prog_reseaux-e.pdf.

  55. Government of Canada. Centres of Excellence for Commercialization and Research: Program Guide Oct 2009 [monograph on the internet]. Ottawa: Networks of Centres of Excellence [cited 2010 Jan 5]. Available from: http://www.nce-rce.gc.ca/_docs/competitions/Comp_2010/Guide_CECR_2010_eng.pdf.

  56. Stem Cell Network. Updated progress report and strategic plan. Ottawa: Stem Cell Network; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Lemmens T. Leopards in the temple: Restoring scientific integrity in the commercialized research scene. J Law Med Ethics 2004; 32:641–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Downie J, Herder M. Reflections on the commercialization of research conducted in public institutions in Canada. McGill Health Law Pub. 2007; 1:23–44.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Herder M, Brian JD. Canada’s stem cell corporation: Aggregate concerns and the question of public trust. J Bus Ethics. 2008; 77:73–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Caulfield T, Ogbogu U. Biomedical research and the commercialization agenda: A review of main considerations for neuroscience. Account Res. 2008; 15:303–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Heller MA, Eisenberg RS. Can patents deter innovation? The anti-commons in biomedical research. Science 1998; 280:698–701.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Walsh JP, Arora A, Cohen WM. Science and the law. Working through the patent problem. Science 2003; 299:1021.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Walsh JP, Cho C, Cohen WM. Patents, material transfers and access to research inputs in biomedical research: Final report to the National Academy of Sciences’ Committee on Intellectual Property Rights in Genomic and Protein-related Inventions, Sept 2005 [monograph on the internet, cited 2010 Jan 5]. Available from: http://www2.druid.dk/conferences/viewpaper.php?id = 776&cf = 8

  64. Walsh JP, Cohen WM, Cho C. Where excludability matters: Material versus intellectual ­property in academic biomedical research. Res Policy 2007; 36: 1184–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Caulfield T, Ogbogu U, Murdoch C.J, Einsiedel E. Patents, commercialization and the Canadian stem cell research community. Regen Med. 2008; 3:483–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. American Association for the Advancement of Science. International intellectual property experiences: A report of four countries [monograph on the internet]. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science; 2007 [cited 2010 Jan 5] Available from: http://sippi.aaas.org/Pubs/SIPPI_Four_Country_Report.pdf.

  67. Lau D, Ogbogu U, Taylor B, Stafinski T, Menon D, Caulfield T. Stem cell clinics online: The Direct-to-consumer portrayal of stem cell medicine. Cell Stem Cell 2008; 3:591–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Viens AM, Savulescu J. Introduction to the Olivieri symposium. J Med Ethics 2004; 30:1–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. Blackman S. Promises, promises: Ill-judged predictions and projections can be embarrassing at best and, at worst, damaging to the authority of science and science policy. The Scientist 2009; 23:28.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Gottweis H, Triendl R. South Korean policy failure and the Hwang debacle. Nature Biotechnology. 2006; 24:141–3.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Caulfield T. Profit and the production of knowledge: The impact of industry on representations of research results. Harv Health Pol Rev. 2007; 8:68–77.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Bekelman J, Li Y, Gross C. Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: A systematic review. JAMA. 2003; 289:454–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Haerlin B, Parr D. How to restore public trust in science. Nature. 1999; 400: 499.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  74. Caulfield T, Einsiedel E, Merz J, Nicol D. Trust, patents, and public perceptions: The ­governance of controversial biotechnology research. Nat Biotechnol. 2006; 24:1352–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. Fernando K, Bubela T, Caulfield T. Public trust and regulatory governance as represented through the media. Health Law Rev. 2006; 15:12–3.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Government of Canada. Public opinion research into biotechnology issues, 3rd wave, Dec 2000 [monograph on the internet]. Ottawa: Canadian Biotechnology Secretariat; 2000 [cited 2009 Nov 26]. Available from: http://www.bioportal.gc.ca/english/view.asp?x  =  551&all  =  true.

  77. Select Committee on Science and Technology, House of Lords, United Kingdom Parliament. Science and technology – 3rd Report, session 1999-2000 [monograph on the internet]. London: U.K. Parliament [cited 2010 Jan 13]. Available from: http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199900/ldselect/ldsctech/38/3801.htm.

  78. National Science Foundation. Science and Engineering Indicators 2008 [monograph on the internet]. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation [cited 2010 Jan 13]. Available from: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind08/pdf/volume1.pdf.

  79. Critchley C. Public opinion and trust in scientists: The role of the research context and the perceived motivation of stem cell researchers. Public Underst Sci. 2008; 17:309–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Critchley C, Turney L. Understanding Australians’ perceptions of controversial research: The influence of social trust, religiosity and anti-intellectualism on opposition to stem cell research. Aust J Emerg Technol Soc. 2004; 2:82–107.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Twombly R. Goal of maintaining public’s trust brings research groups together on conflict-of-interest guidelines. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005; 97:1560–1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. DeAngelis C. Conflict of interest and the public trust. JAMA. 2000; 284:2237–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  83. Kelch R. Maintaining the public trust in clinical research. N Engl J Med. 2002; 346:285–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Sharpe V. Science, bioethics, and the public interest: On the need for transparency. Hastings Cent Rep. 2002; 32:23–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Professor Timothy Caulfield for his invaluable input to this piece and continual guidance and support, as well as Canada’s Stem Cell Network for funding assistance.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. SJD Program, University of Toronto, 84 Queen’s Park, M5S 2C5, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Ubaka Ogbogu (Faculty of Law)

Authors
  1. Ubaka Ogbogu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Amy Zarzeczny
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Dept. Medical Ethics, University of Lund, 221 84, Lund, Sweden

    Kristina Hug  & Göran Hermerén  & 

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Ogbogu, U., Zarzeczny, A. (2011). Ethical, Legal and Social Implications of Translational Stem Cell Research: Effects of Commercialization on Public Opinion and Trust of Stem Cell Research. In: Hug, K., Hermerén, G. (eds) Translational Stem Cell Research. Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine. Humana Press, Totowa, NJ. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-60761-959-8_25

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation