Contemporary issues in regenerative medicine research ethics and governance: An overview

Regenerative Medicine Ethics: Governing Research and Knowledge Practices

Volumn 9781461490623, Issue , 2014, Pages 3-28

  Hogle, Linda F ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AND PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84929666702     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4614-9062-3_1     Document Type: Chapter

References (60)

1. Asahi Shimbun (2013, June 29). Too much of a rush for clinical trials with iPS cells (editorial). Retrieved June 30, 2013, from http://ajw.asahi.com/article/views/AJ201306280044.
2. Bayon, Y., Ellis, S., Vertes, A., Ahmed, A., Coury, A. J., Campion, C., et al. (2013). Commercialization of regenerative products-The academic/industry partnership-Society World Congress: Summary report: Vienna, Austria/September 5-8, 2012. Tissue Engineering. Part B, Reviews. doi: 10.1089/ten.TEB.2012.0683.
3. Bergman, K., & Graff, G. D. (2007). The global stem cell patent landscape: Implications for efficient technology transfer and commercial development. Nature Biotechnology, 25 (4), 419-424.
4. Brock, D. (2010). Creating embryos for use in stem cell research. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 38 (2), 229-237.
5. Bubela, T. M., & Caulfield, T. (2010). Role and reality: Technology transfer at Canadian universities. Trends in Biotechnology, 28 (9), 447-451.
6. Caulfield, T., Harmon, S., & Yann, J. (2012). Open science versus commercialization: A modern research conflict? Genome Medicine, 4 (2), 17.
7. Chapman, A. R. (2009). The ethics of patenting human embryonic stem cells. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 19 (3), 261-288.
8. Charo, R. A. (2001). Every cell is sacred: Logical consequences of the argument from potential in the age of cloning. In P. Lauritzen (Ed.), Cloning and the future of human embryo research (pp. 82-89). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
9. Charo, R. A. (2006). Body of research-Ownership and use of human tissue. The New England Journal of Medicine, 355 (15), 1517-1519.
10. Cohen, C. (2007). Renewing the stuff of life: Stem cells, ethics and public policy. New York: Oxford University Press.
11. Collins, L. R., & Crockin, S. L. (2012). Fighting "personhood" initiatives in the United States. Reproductive Biomedicine Online, 24 (7), 689-691. doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2012.04.002.
12. Condic, M. L., & Rao, M. (2008). Regulatory issues for personalized pluripotent cells. Stem Cells, 26 (11), 2753-2758.
13. de Vries, R., Oerlemans, A., Trommelmans, L., Dierickx, K., & Gordijn, B. (2008). Ethical aspects of tissue engineering: A review. Tissue Engineering. Part B, 14 (4), 367-375.
14. Deans, R. (2012). Regulation, manufacturing and building industry consensus. Regenerative Medicine, 7 (6 Suppl), 78-81.
15. DiSilvestro, R. (2006). Not every cell is sacred: A reply to Charo. Bioethics, 20 (3), 146-157.
16. Downs, K. (2008). Embryological origins of the human individual. DNA and Cell Biology, 27 (1), 3-7. doi: 10.1089=dna.2007.0698.
17. Dubow, S. (2011). Ourselves unborn: A history of the fetus in modern America. New York: Oxford University Press.
18. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: From national systems and ?mode 2? to a triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Research Policy, 29 (2), 109-123.
19. Etzkowitz, H., Ranga, M., Benner, M., Guaranys, L., Maculan, A. M., & Kneller, R. (2008). Pathways to the entrepreneurial university: Towards a global convergence. Science and Public Policy, 35 (9), 681-695.
20. Faulkner, A. (2009). Regulatory policy as innovation: Constructing rules of engagement for a technological zone of tissue engineering in the European Union. Research Policy, 38 (4), 637-646.
21. Fink, D. W. (2009). FDA regulation of stem cell-based products. Science, 324 (5935), 1662-1663.
22. Fisher, M. B., & Mauck, R. L. (2013). Tissue engineering and regenerative medicine: Recent innovations and the transition to translation. Tissue Engineering. Part B, Reviews, 19 (1), 1-13.
23. George, G., & Bock, A. J. (2008). Inventing entrepreneurs: Technology innovators and their entrepreneurial journey. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
24. Golden, J. M. (2010). WARF?s stem cell patents and tensions between public and private sector approaches to research. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 38 (2), 314-331.
25. Gottlieb, S., & Klasmeier, C. (2012, August 7). The FDA wants to regulate your cells. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved July 1, 2013, from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444405804577558992030043820.html.
26. Gottweis, H., Salter, B., & Waldby, C. (2009). The global politics of human embryonic stem cell science: Regenerative medicine in transition. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
27. Gymrek, M., McGuire, A., Golan, D., Halpern, E., & Erlich, Y. (2013). Identifying personal genomes by surname inference. Science, 339 (6117), 321-324. doi: 10.1126/science.1229566.
28. Haimes, E., & Taylor, K. (2011). Researching the relationships between tissue providers, clinicians and stem cell scientists. Cell Stem Cell, 8 (6), 613-615.
29. Hellman, K. B., Johnson, P. C., Bertram, T. A., & Tawil, B. (2011). Challenges in tissue engineering and regenerative medicine product commercialization: Building an industry. Tissue Engineering. Part A, 17 (1-2), 1-3. doi: 10.1089/ten.TEA.2010.0436.
30. Herder, M., & Brian, J. (2008). Canada?s stem cell corporation: Aggregate concerns and the question of public trust. Journal of Business Ethics, 77 (1), 73-84.
31. Hoeyer, K., Olofsson, B.-O., Mjörndal, T., & Lynöe, N. (2005). The ethics of research using biobanks: Reason to question the importance attributed to informed consent. Archives of Internal Medicine, 165 (1), 97-100. doi: 10.1001/archinte.165.1.97.
32. Hogle, L. F. (2009). Science, ethics and the "problems" of governing nanotechnologies. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 37 (4), 749-758.
33. Holland, S., Lebacqz, K., & Zoloth, L. (Eds.). (2001). The human embryonic stem cell debate: Science, ethics, and public policy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
34. Jasanoff, S. (2004). States of knowledge: The co-production of science and social order. London: Routledge.
35. Jasanoff, S. (2005). Designs on nature: Science and democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
36. Johnson, P. C., Bertram, T. A., Tawil, B., & Hellman, K. B. (2011). Hurdles in tissue engineering/regenerative medicine product commercialization: A survey of North American academia and industry. Tissue Engineering. Part A, 17 (1-2), 5-15. doi: 10.1089/ten.tea.2010.0411
37. Kesselheim, A. S., & Karlawish, J. (2012). Biomarkers unbound-The Supreme Court?s ruling on diagnostic-test patents. The New England Journal of Medicine, 366 (25), 2338-2340. doi: 10.1056/nejmp1204164.
38. Koleva, G. (2012, February 10). Stem cells and the lawsuit that could change our medical future. Forbes. Retrieved July 1, 2013 from http://www.forbes.com/sites/gerganakoleva/2012/02/10/stem-cells-and-the-lawsuit-that-may-shape-our-medical-future/.
39. Liptak, A. (2013, June 13). Justices, 9-0, bar patenting human genes. The New York Times. Retrieved June 13, 2013, from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/14/us/supreme-court-ruleshuman-genes-may-not-be-patented.html?ref=myriadgeneticsinc.
40. London, A. J., Kimmelman, J., & Emborg, M. E. (2010). Beyond access vs. protection in trials of innovative therapies. Science, 328 (5980), 829-830.
41. Maienschein, J. (2002). What?s in a name? Embryos, clones and stem cells. The American Journal of Bioethics, 2 (1), 12-19.
42. Marshall, E. (2013). Supreme Court rules out patents on "natural" genes. Science, 340 (6139), 1387-1388.
43. Mason, C., McCall, M. J., Culme-Seymour, E. J., Suthasan, S., Edwards-Parton, S., Bonfiglio, G. A., et al. (2012). The global cell therapy industry continues to rise during the second and third quarters of 2012. Cell Stem Cell, 11 (6), 735-739. doi: 10.1016/j.stem.2012.11.013.
44. Mathews, D., Graff, G., Saha, K., & Winickoff, D. (2011). Access to stem cells and data: Persons, property rights, and scientific progress. Science, 331 (6018), 725-727.
45. McGuire, A. L., Oliver, J. M., Slashinski, M. J., Graves, J. L., Wang, T., Kelly, P. A., et al. (2011). To share or not to share: A randomized trial of consent for data sharing in genome research. Genetics in Medicine, 13 (11), 948-955. doi: 10.1097/GIM.0b013e3182227589.
46. Morgan, L. M. (2009). Icons of life: A cultural history of human embryos. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
47. Munro, N. (2003). Academics? ties to business muddy disclosure decisions. The Scientist, 17 (8), 54-55.
48. National Academies of Science. (2011). Toward precision medicine: Building a knowledge network for biomedical research and a new taxonomy of disease. Retrieved October 2012, from http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record-id=13284
49. National Institutes of Health. (1994). Report of the human embryo research panel. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health.
50. O'Doherty, K. C., Burgess, M. M., Edwards, K., Gallagher, R. P., Hawkins, A. K., Kaye, J., et al. (2011). From consent to institutions: Designing adaptive governance for genomic biobanks. Social Science & Medicine, 73 (3), 367-374. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.05.046.
51. Park, I.-H., Arora, N., Huo, H., Maherali, N., Ahfeldt, T., Shimamura, A., et al. (2008). Diseasespecific induced pluripotent stem cells. Cell, 134 (5), 877-886.
52. Rao, M. S. (2009). Funding translational work in cell-based therapy. Cell Stem Cell, 9 (1), 7-10. doi: 10.1016/j.stem.2011.06.009.
53. Rhoten, D. (2007). The frontiers of intellectual property: Expanded protection versus new models of open science. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 3 (1), 345-373. doi: 10.1146/annurev.lawsocsci.3.081806.112900.
54. Seok, J., Warren, H. S., Cuenca, A. G., Mindrinos, M. N., Baker, H. V., Xu, W., et al. (2013). Genomic responses in mouse models poorly mimic human inflammatory diseases. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110 (9), 3507-3512. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1222878110.
55. Siegel, D. S., Veugelers, R., & Wright, M. (2007). Technology transfer offices and commercialization of university intellectual property: Performance and policy implications. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 23 (4), 640-660.
56. Singer, P., & Kuhse, H. (1986). The ethics of embryo research. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 14 (3-4), 133-138.
57. Torremans, L. (2011). Legal problems raised by patents on human stem cell-based interventions. In K. Hug & G. Hermerén (Eds.), Translational stem cell research: Issues beyond the debate on moral status of the human embryo (pp. 287-307). New York: Humana Press.
58. Wadman, M. (2010a). US stem-cell chaos felt abroad. Nature, 467 (7312), 138-139. doi: 10.1038/467138a.
59. Wadman, M. (2010b). Diseased cells fail to win approval. Nature, 465, 852.
60. Winickoff, D., Saha, K., & Graff, G. (2009). Opening stem cell research and development: A policy proposal for the management of data, intellectual property and ethics. Yale Journal of Health Policy, Law, and Ethics, 9 (1), 52-127.