Display Settings:

Format

Send to:

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Hum Reprod. 2006 Oct;21(10):2474-81. Epub 2006 Jul 27.

Beyond the permissibility of embryonic and stem cell research: substantive requirements and procedural safeguards.

Author information

  • 1Centre de recherche en droit public (CRDP), Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada. rosario.isasi@umontreal.ca

Abstract

This report provides a comparative analysis of the regulation of embryonic stem cells and cloning research in 50 countries. The development of international stem cell consortia involving the exchange of materials, data and knowledge presumes 'policy know-how' on the varying positions and governing regulations of the various partners; knowledge is essential for the feasibility of such international collaborative projects. Across the spectrum of restrictive-to-liberal policies, requirements regarding the justification for or the setting of substantive limits on (i) embryo use and/or (ii) destruction in research are often present. These goals justify the regulation, the control and even the prohibition of embryonic stem cell and cloning research. Moreover, irrespective of whether a country adopts a restrictive or a liberal approach, there is significant symmetry in both the substantive and the procedural requirements. Procedural safeguards provide another layer of protection and control over the research. In reality, such safeguards may have a greater systemic impact than the substantive requirements. They can be subdivided into three broad categories: (i) safeguards relating to the stage of embryonic development, (ii) safeguards relating to the donors of blastocysts, gametes, embryos and somatic cells and (iii) requirements for research governance.

PMID:
16877375
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Free full text
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for HighWire
    Loading ...
    Write to the Help Desk