National Determinants of Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research Policy in Select Countries

Virginia C. Hughes^1,

¹University of Delaware, United States

Cite this paper

Virginia C. Hughes. National Determinants of Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research Policy in Select Countries. American Journal of Public Health Research. 2022; 10(1):11-21. doi: 10.12691/AJPHR-10-1-3

Abstract

The policies which dictate the scope of embryonic stem cell research around the world are diverse reflecting primarily the country’s culture and posture on the status of a human embryo and beneficent duty in healing persons afflicted with disease. In this retrospective comparative study utilizing logistic regression six national factors were analyzed for their effect on permissive or restrictive human embryonic stem cell policies in fifty countries. These are literacy, age of citizens, type and size of government, religion, and funding. It was hypothesized that a high literacy rate, younger age of citizens, public funding, lower number of legislators, and unicameral government would favor a permissive policy whereas a higher percentage of Catholics, older age of citizens, private funding, greater number of legislators, bicameral government, and low literacy rate would favor a restrictive policy. The variables which were found to be statistically significant (P<.05) were funding and Catholicism. Results indicated public funding had a direct effect on permissive policies and percentage of Catholics in each country had an inverse effect on permissive policies surrounding embryonic stem cell research utilizing logistic regression. Culture will continue to influence the trajectory of embryonic stem cell policy navigating between the moral imperative of protection of the human embryo and curing those afflicted with disease.

Keywords

stem cell, embryo, logistic regression, culture

Copyright

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

References

[1]	Burke J, Berman J, Asimov I (1985). The Impact of Science on Society. Washington DC: NASA.
[2]	Thomson J. (1998). Embryonic Stem Cell Lines Derived from Human Blastocysts. Science. 282: 1145-48.
[3]	Cesarino, L. (2011) The Embryo Research Debate in Brazil: from the National Congress to the Federal Supreme Court. Soc Studies Science 41(2):227-250.
[4]	Areddy, J. (2013). China formally Eases One-Child Policy. WSJ [online] Dec 28.
[5]	Heng, B (2009). Stringent Regulation of Oocyte Donation in China. Hum Reprod 24 (1): 14-16.
[6]	Cai J, Zhao Y, Liu Y et al (2007). Directed Differentiation of Human Embryonic Stem cells into Functional Hepatic Cells. Hepatology 45 (5):1229-39.
[7]	Pain E (2013). New Law in France loosens Restrictions on Human Embryonic Research. Science Insider July 17.
[8]	Heyd D (1993). Artificial Reproductive Technologies: The Israeli Scene. Bioethics 7(2/3):263-70.
[9]	Takahashi K, Yamanaka S (2006). Induction of Pluripotent Stem Cells from Mouse Embryonic and Adult Fibroblast Cultures by defined Factors. Cell 126 (4): 663-76.
[10]	Cyranoski D (2008). Stem Cells: A National Project. Nature 451: 229.
[11]	Takenaka K (2014). Japan finds fraudulent steps in breakthrough Stem Cell Paper. Reuters April 1.
[12]	Colman A (2008). Stem Cell Research in Singapore. Cell 132 (4): 519-21.
[13]	Schuklenk U (2002). Ethics, Politics, and Embryo Stem Cell Research in South Africa. S African Med J 92: 782-86.
[14]	Baylis F (2009). For Love or Money? The Sage of Korean Women who provided eggs for Embryonic Stem Cell Research. Theor Med Bioeth [online] Sept 29.
[15]	Carmichael M (2005). Eggs, Lies, and Stem Cells. Newsweek March 13.
[16]	Warnock M (1984). A Question of Life: The Warnock Report on Human Fertilisation and Embryology. Oxford Blackwell, p 99.
[17]	Eurobarometer (2010). https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/corporate/pub/eurobarometer10.
[18]	Micaleff R. (2006). Stem Cells Controversy. Malta Media website: http://www.dailymalta.com/wt/2006/06/stem-cells-controversy.shtml.
[19]	UNESCO (2006). Why Literacy Matters. United Nations (Paris).
[20]	Schultz G (2006). Polish Parliament adopts Resolution against Human Embryonic Research. Life Site News July 24.
[21]	Stafford N (2011). Scientists in Slovakia campaign against diversion of funding. Royal Soc Chem. Mar 3
[22]	Bournedjout H. (2011). EU to Fund Tunisian Research Programme. Nature [online] Oct 26.
[23]	Montano PJ, de Alia G, Gonzalez J et al (2011). Medical Law in Uruguay, London: Kluwer Law Intl, pp. 179-80.
[24]	Pashigian R (2012). The Growth of Biomedical Infertility Services in Vietnam: Access and Opportunities. FVV in OBGYN Monograph, pp 59-63.
[25]	Azariadis C, Drazen A (1990). Threshold Externalities in Economic Development. Quart J Econ 105 (2):501-26.
[26]	Miller JD (2006). Civic Scientific Literacy in Europe and the United States. World Association for Public Opinion Research, Montreal, Canada.
[27]	Monmaney T (2013). How much do Americans know about science? Smithsonian Magazine May 2013.
[28]	Miller JD (1983). Scientific Literacy: A Conceptual and Empirical Review. Daedalus 112 (2):29-48.
[29]	Eurobarometer (2005). https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/detail/755.
[30]	Solo P, G Pressberg. (2007). The Promise and Politics of Stem Cell Research. Praeger: Santa Barbara.
[31]	Fink S. (2008). Politics as usual or bring Religion back in? The Influence of Parties, Institutions, Economic Interests, and Religion on Embryo Research Laws. Comparative Pol Stud 41 (12): 1631-56.
[32]	Cendrowicz L (2010). The Belgian Church Sex Abuse: the struggle to restore faith. Time Sept 15.
[33]	Pew Research Religion and Public Life Project (2013). Brazil’s changing Religious Landscape. http://www.pewforum.org/2013/07/18.