Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research: Recommendations for the Next Administration
Table of Contents
Author(s)
Kirstin R.W. Matthews
Fellow in Science and Technology PolicyNeal F. Lane
Senior Fellow in Science and Technology Policy | Professor of Physics and Astronomy EmeritusTo access the full paper, download the PDF on the left-hand sidebar.
Overview
Stem cell research should be allowed to expand in a responsible, thoughtful and ethical manner and a comprehensive federal stem cell policy should be developed that includes ethical oversight of all such research, regardless of who pays for it and where it is done. This paper seeks to describe and explain recommendations for the next administration in the context of the current state of the science, existing stem cell policy, and public opinion in the United States.
Recommendation 1: Expand federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research.
1.1. Support research on all types of human stem cells, including embryonic, adult, nuclear transfer derived (also known as therapeutic cloning) and induced pluripotent derived.
1.2. Authorize federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research on lines derived according to strict ethical guidelines, regardless of the date the cell lines were derived or created.
1.3. Remove the Dickey Amendment (which severely limits the National Institutes of Health funding of embryonic research) from the Department of Health and Human Services appropriation bills.
Recommendation 2: Create a comprehensive federal stem cell research oversight policy with the National Institutes of Health taking the lead.
2.1. Ban any effort to clone a human being, regardless of the source of funding.
2.2. Create an Embryonic Stem Cell Research Oversight (ESCRO) board within the National Institutes of Health to review controversial research and recommend policy for the agency.
2.3. Continue the President’s Council on Bioethics.
This material may be quoted or reproduced without prior permission, provided appropriate credit is given to the author and Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy. The views expressed herein are those of the individual author(s), and do not necessarily represent the views of Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy.