The History of Stem Cell Legislation - Research Paper Example

?Stem Cell Research Legislation and the Related Legal Issues Legislation to Stem cell research generally refers to the laws, rules, and policies governing the sources, research procedures, and the application of the stem cell research in the treatment of stem cells in human beings. These laws are not universal and thereby vary from one state or country to another with some generating a lot of controversy. These statutes equally address issues relating to abortion and in vitro fertilization in various countries. For example, in the US, Stem cell research correlates with the politics of abortion. Sources of embryonic stem cells include existing unused in vitro fertilized embryos, stem cell lines, cloned embryos, and aborted or miscarried embryos (National Conference of State Legislatures, 2008). The research on these sources falls under state laws individually or universally. The state may restrict the use on some sources or permit specific activities on such sources. Additionally, the state may limit the use of state funds on stem cell research. Although any research relies on the patient’s consent, many states restrict research on aborted foetuses or embryos. Nevertheless, no state has enacted any legislation to forbid stem cell research (National Conference of State Legislatures, 2008). The History of Stem Cell Research Legislation in The United States The discovery of the multiplication of cells in the mid 1800's, catapulted the embryonic beginning of the history of stem cell research. Additionally, the discovery of the first real stem cell in the 1900s was a great milestone to the history of stem cell research that included work with human and animal stem cells. Legal issues relating to stem cell research legislation emanated in 1973 when the US Supreme Court legalized abortion (Ther, 2002). This lead to the decision by the federal government to restrict any funding by placing a moratorium to embryo research with a presumption that such research would promote more abortions. Personally, I tend to believe in this analogy especially where the research was to take place in an unregulated institution. However, in 1988 a National Institute of Health (NIH) panel voted in favour of the US government funding to stem cell research (Popular Issues Home, 2012). Moreover, in 1990, the US Congress voted against the moratorium on government funding of embryonic stem cell research but President George Bush vetoed their decision. Later on President Clinton lifted the moratorium on government funding of embryonic stem cell. This led to a public outcry that forced him to reverse his decision. Indeed, the Congress banned federal funding to stem cell research in 1995 with a further extension to the moratorium by the DHHS Secretary Sullivan in 1998 (Popular Issues Home, 2012). More so, in 2000, President Bill Clinton allowed restricted funding on stem cells derived from aborted human foetuses only. Most significantly, the issue of stem cell research took a political dimension on the first year of President George W. Bush's term in 2001. Indeed, on August 9, 2001, Bush announced his decision to allow Federal funding on existing human embryonic stem cell lines prior to August 9, 2001 and equally enhanced the ban on federal spending on deriving new embryonic stem cells from fertilized embryos. Actually, the US stuck to this decision of the refusal to fund embryo research for 30 years. Even though the overall ban on embryo research remains in the US, Bush's decision on allowing limited federal funds for stem cell research was very fundamental. Moreover, in 2004, Congress sought Bush’s review on his policy on embryonic stem cell research funding that he refused to revert (Popular Issues Home, 2012). Comparison to Comparable Statutes in the Rest of the World Stem Cell Research Legislation in the US is comparable to other statutes in the world. Indeed, the legislation that governs stem cell research varies considerably from state to state and from country to country depending on cultural, religious, and ethical values. For example in Australia, we have the Research Involving Human Embryos Act of 2002 and the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction Act of 2002 (Australian Stem Cell Centre, 2011). These acts allowed research on excess IVF embryos. They significantly support the derivation of human embryonic stem cells, restrict somatic cell nuclear transfer, and prevent cloning. However, they prohibit the use of non-human animal eggs for somatic cell nuclear transfer and to use excess human IVF embryos, a researcher must obtain a licence from the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Licensing Committee (Australian Stem Cell Centre, 2011). In addition, we also have the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine of 1997 that is equally relevant to human embryonic stem cell research. This is a European Directive that associates itself with stem cell banking and databases (Euro Stem Cell, 2007). In Illinois, the statute allows stem cell research on embryonic stem cells, adult stem cells, and embryonic germ cells from any source except from an aborted foetus. In addition, it prohibits funding of research on foetuses from induced abortions and research on foetus. To perform a stem cell research on a dead foetus, a written consent is required. The Current Legislative State of Affairs There has been a general concern in the US congress to put up effective legislation on stem cell research. As such, the 110th Congress (2007-2008) had two categories of legislations pertaining to stem cell research. They sought to expand the funding of embryonic stem cell research and expand the stem cell research in absence of human embryonic stem cells. Indeed, on January 11, 2007, the House passed the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007 thereby lifting President Bush restriction of 2001 on new federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research (Research America, 2012). However, President Bush was against this bill. Actually, on June 20, 2007, he vetoed the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007 with an executive order entitled, Expanding Approved Stem Cell Lines in Ethically Responsible Ways that discouraged stem cell research using human embryos. His action became a political item in 2008 having vetoed the bill for three times in his presidency. However, on March 9, 2009, President Barack Obama refuted Bush’s restrictions on federal funding for new embryonic stem cell lines research by lifting the ban (Research America, 2012). This was through an executive order entitled, Removing Barriers to Responsible Scientific Research Involving Human Stem Cells. Subsequently, on July 9, 2009 the National Institutes of Health published its guidelines to affect Obama’s executive order thus establishing a procedure and policy for the NIH funding on stem cell research (Research America, 2012). The Future of the Law on Stem Cells in the United States The future of the law on stem cells in the United States highly depends on the support and criticism it faces in its application and its effectiveness. There are criticisms that embryonic stem cells research effectively destroys life and thus we be should avoid it any range. In addition, the use of cord blood stems cells is more effective as it has no ethical dilemmas or medical dangers to the patient as compared to the more theoretical embryonic stem cell research. Moreover, the continued funding on stem cell embryonic research increases the possibilities for more abortions and women exploitation in future as the researchers seek to collect their eggs for research. However, there has been immense support of stem cell research legislation that fosters future success of this legalisation. Indeed, the embryonic cells applied in the research are more versatile compared to adult stem cells hence the likelihood of future medical discoveries through this legislation. More so, the government involvement in the research is very significant in the future success of the research as it institutes regulation. Indeed, the funding from the government compels the researchers to share their findings to the benefit of the citizens hence the eminent future success of the legislation (American Legislative Exchange Council, 2007). Similarly, it is ethically acceptable to destroy human embryos for beneficial research since the embryos had no other significant use. As such, the legislation on stem cell research will be very fundamental in the future subject the above listed reasons. In addition, the legislation enjoys immense support from the Congress, the 2004 General Conference of the United Methodist Church, prominent doctors like Dr. Diane Krause of Yale University and Dr. Mary Hendrix of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (American Legislative Exchange Council, 2007). This guarantees the success of the stem cell research in the future. References American Legislative Exchange Council, (2007). U.S. federal stem cell legislation. Source Watch. Retrieved from: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=U.S._federal_stem_cell_legislation Australian Stem Cell Centre, (2011). Legislation. Australian Stem Cell Centre. Retrieved from: http://www.stemcellcentre.edu.au/for_the_public/legislation.aspx Euro Stem Cell, (2007). What does the law say about human embryonic stem cell research in Europe? Euro Stem Cell. Retrieved from: http://www.eurostemcell.org/faq/what-does-law-say-about-human-embryonic-stem-cell-research-europe National Conference of State Legislatures,(2008). Stem Cell Research. National Conference of State Legislatures. Retrieved from: http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/health/embryonic-and-fetal-research-laws.aspx Popular Issues Home, (2012). What is the history of stem cell research? Popular Issues Home. Retrieved from: http://www.allaboutpopularissues.org/history-of-stem-cell-research-faq.htm Research America, (2012). Stem Cell Research FAQs. Research America. Retrieved from: http://www.researchamerica.org/stemcell_faqs Ther, G (2002). Embryo and stem cell research in the United States: history and politics. National Centre for Biotechnology Information. Retrieved from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12032685 Read More