Note the presence of bioethics Founder Thomas Murray, President of the Hastings Center, on this international stem cell "committee". In true international bioethics fashion, this "committee" only uses data from other countries that they want to include (or you want to consider). They stack the "committees" mostly with those who agree that stem cell research is "ethical" so that when the vote is taken they arrive at the "consensus" statement desired and preordained. The brand of "ethics" used is some form of "Belmont bioethics" -- a non-neutral - let me repeat, non-neutral -- and seriously defunct "federal ethics" created out of thin air by the U.S. Congress in 1978. This "ethics" defines "autonomy", "justice" and "beneficence" in quite strange ways totally unheard of before. And this "ethics" has purposefully and admittedly arbitrarily mis-defined the accurate human embryology involved since the beginning of this "ethics" field in 1978.
According to the international nomenclature committee on human embryology (which consists of about 23-25 Ph.D. human embryologists from around the world, and whose Terminologica Embryologica is available for sale in book or CD-Rom format at: http://www.thieme.com/SID2194056226451/productsubpages/pubid-1163116455.html; view their Carnegie Stages online at: http://nmhm.washingtondc.museum/collections/hdac/Select_Stage_and_Lab_Manual.htm), there is no such thing scientifically as a "pre-embryo", a "pre-embryo substitute", a "14-day stage" that does not involve an already existing living human embryo/human being/human organism/human individual that would be killed. Nor is the passe and grossly scientifically inaccurate "biogenetics law" accepted internationally any more.
Yet most if not all of the members of this "committee" and the countries they represent continue to base national and international public policy on such fraudulent science. Hwang's recent scientific fraud pales into insignificance compared to this. Rather than confront the accurate human embryology and the natural ethics that flows from it, they will by-pass the issue entirely, and consider for discussion "regulation" only. What will it take for this monumental scientific and ethical fraud to stop? -- See Irving:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/312/5772/366
Science 21 April 2006:
Vol. 312. no. 5772, pp. 366 - 367
DOI: 10.1126/science.312.5772.366
Letters
The International Stem Cell Forum (ISCF) supports research on all stem cell types, including adult stem cells, embryonic stem cells, and stem cells from umbilical cord blood (1). The Ethics Working Party (EWP) of the ISCF has 19 participants from 17 (2) countries. In 2004, the EWP defined its mission as (i) clarification of ethical issues and, where possible, the international harmonization of ethical standards; (ii) the sharing of stem cell lines; and (iii) an agreement on standards for the characterization and registration of lines. As it pursued this mission, by conducting ongoing study of regulatory approaches to human embryonic stem cell research in 50 countries, the EWP identified certain international trends, effective practices, and emerging issues that require further discussion and clarification.
International trends include the following. A small number of countries prohibit all embryonic stem cell research (3). Most other countries either permit in vitro research with embryos with no mention of stem cells, limit the creation of stem cell lines to surplus in vitro fertilization (IVF) embryos under certain conditions (such as governance, accreditation, ethics review, and restrictions on research objectives), or limit research to imported cell lines. Seven countries (4) explicitly permit the creation of embryos for research purposes, but it must be shown that the research cannot be achieved with the use of other stem cell lines (such as IVF embryos or adult cell lines). All 50 countries studied prohibit or strongly discourage human reproductive cloning (through laws or guidelines). In most countries that allow human embryonic stem cell derivation from human embryos, there are shared principles as well as professional norms and substantive and procedural conditions that further constrain this work. Currently, common principles and procedures include respect for human dignity (5); respect for life (limiting growth to 14 days, at which time the primitive streak forms); autonomy (requirement for informed donor consent); donor and/or patient privacy and confidentiality; noncommercialization (prohibiting the buying and selling of embryos); avoidance and declaration of conflicts of interest; limitation to therapeutic purposes (in contrast to reproductive cloning); ethics review before commencement of study; and the traceability of cell lines with respect to their sources.
In the absence of a more formal international ethics framework specific to stem cell research, some countries have added more stringent and effective practices. Licensing requirements ensure the competence of personnel and the quality and safety of stem lines and verify the informed consent of participants. Equivalence requirements ensure that the importation or exportation of stem cell lines is limited to countries that meet the ethical requirements of the host country and are lawful in the importing country. Sunset clauses (6) in guidelines or laws ensure continual review of changing scientific and socioeconomic norms. Additional requirements include monitoring the research using the established lines in stem cell banks.
Recent evidence of scientific fraud and unacceptable egg donor procurement practices in South Korea (7) highlights the importance of regulation as an emerging issue in this field. Scientific responsibility and integrity must be promoted with attention to possible economic and political influences that might negatively affect researchers. Incentives for open exchange, registration, and validation of results need to be identified. The conditions (such as financial gain, informed consent, protections of confidentiality, and privacy of the donor) for egg donation for IVF treatment should be distinguished from the conditions surrounding egg donation for research purposes, and potential egg donors should be informed clearly as to the intended uses of their eggs. The failure to follow good ethical practices in egg donation could result in a loss of trust and reluctance to donate among prospective donors. The scarcity of human ova available for research makes human-animal chimeras more attractive, but the application of chimeras to stem cell research requires conceptual clarification and attention to its ethical dimensions. Finally, transparency on the powers and the composition of the necessary oversight bodies is a sine qua non for all stem cell research irrespective of a country's position.
International Stem Cell Forum Ethics Working Party ISCF EWP, Centre de Recherche en Droit Public, Université de Montréal, Montreal, QC H3C 3J7, Canada. The members of the ISCF EWP are B. M. Knoppers (Chair) (Université de Montreal), G. Richardson (King's College London School of Law), E. H. Lee (National University of Singapore), J. Kure (Masaryk University, Czech Republic), G. de Wert (University of Maastricht, Netherlands), J. C. Ameisen (French Institute of Health and Medical Research), L. Lötjönen (National Advisory Board on Research Ethics, Finland), K. Breen (National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia), R. Isasi (Université de Montréal), A. Mauron (University of Geneva), T. Murray (The Hastings Center, New York), and J. Wahlström (University of Gothenburg, Sweden).
FAIR USE NOTICE: This may contain copyrighted (©) material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. This material is distributed without profit.