J Dent Res 86(3):197, 2007
© 2007 International and American Associations for Dental Research
Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research and Its Regulation
Anthony J. Smith
Department of Oral Biology, University of Birmingham, St Chad’s Queensway, Birmingham B4 6NN, UK; a.j.smith{at}bham.ac.uk
KEY WORDS: embryonic • stem cells • regulation • embryos • hESC
The ethical debate regarding human embryonic stem cell (hESC) research has echoed around the globe without a consensus. While there is wide recognition of the part that such research could potentially play in the development of treatments for neurodegenerative disorders, such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s diseases, and many other debilitating and devastating illnesses, including coronary disease, cancer, and diabetes, there is considerable disparity between countries with regard to regulatory control of hESC research and the public funding for it. Some of these disparities perhaps arise from the disproportionate influence of some of the stakeholders interested in the regulation of how hESC research can be conducted and the public resources for its funding. However, such disparities are also sometimes mirrored in the commitment of a country to universal healthcare for all of the population. Providing equitable access to even the most basic healthcare can be problematic, and disparities of access are only exacerbated as new and cutting-edge, although often expensive, treatments become available.
In the US, President Bush’s decision to allow Federal funding of hESC research on only cell lines already in existence prior to August 9, 2001, has compromised researchers’ ability to be internationally competitive in this area of research. In contrast, the regulatory regime in the UK has been far more supportive of hESC research and the use of these cells in therapeutic cloning. However, at the time of writing, the UK Government has provoked the wrath of researchers by suggesting that they are considering a ban on the development of hybrid and chimera embryos, on the grounds that its consultation on such research was negative, despite the scope of the consultation being possibly biased and less-informed than might be desirable. The rather divergent stances on hESC research in these countries highlight the need to involve all interested stakeholders in determining policy. Importantly, it is critical that the debate should be well-informed and not based simply on emotion if we are to achieve a balanced view on the value of hESC research to society. While being an emotional issue, hESC is of such immense importance to the future of medicine that it deserves more reasoned consideration.
Oral, dental, and craniofacial research has much to gain from the ethical use of hESC for a variety of purposes, such as tissue engineering and the development of treatments for a variety of devastating diseases. Regulatory control of such research and the provision of public funding to undertake the research will profoundly influence progress in this area. The potential advances in medicine that may emanate from this research are far-reaching and, if widely adopted, will contribute to our goal of providing equitable access to the best healthcare across the globe. These advances will be achieved only through broad involvement of all of the stakeholders in the debate on hESC research and their influence on policy. Importantly, this involvement in the debate should derive from a well-informed view of the scientific and medical issues, and not be unduly influenced by political, emotional, or other views.
