Law under the Microscope

San Francisco to be Home for California's Stem Cell Research Institute

California made a big splash last year when it passed Prop. 71, which called for distributing $3,000,000,000 in bond-backed funds for stem cell research over the next 10 years. One of the first tasks the board that was chosen to run the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine had to face was picking a home. On Friday, San Francisco was officially announced as the future home for the Institute.

What I love about the NY Times article about the announcement is that it's incredibly brief, and notes that "[w]ith its international standing and spectacular views, San Francisco had been the early front-runner in an initial field of 10 cities that last week was narrowed to the four finalists."  As if the most urgent consideration in the process was which city was the most picturesque (having lived and traveled all over California, if that really was the criteria, they'd likely have chosen Santa Barbara, Napa or Tahoe instead).

UN Backs Nonbinding Resolution to Ban Cloning

After a couple of years of debate on the issue and killing two competing proposals last fall regarding a stance on genetic cloning, the U.N. voted to adopt a nonbinding resolution that urges its members to enact legislation that would prohibit all human cloning. As may be guessed, each side is declaring victory. The US officially had been pushing for a binding resolution for all members states to ban human cloning, and the administration praised the final result saying,

"The United States and the international community have now spoken clearly that human cloning is an affront to human dignity."

Meanwhile, Britain had supported allowing each member state to decide for itself and also declared victory.

UK health secretary John Reid yesterday said that the UN declaration is "non-binding and will make no difference whatsoever to the position of stem cell research in the UK: therapeutic cloning will continue to be allowed. The UK remains 'open for business' in stem cell research."

One part of the declaration that kinda made me raise an eyebrow is, among its general language about protecting human life and prohibiting genetic research that is counter to human dignity, language calling on nations to "prevent the exploitation of women in the application of life sciences."  Now, I'm female. I'm against the exploitation of women. But sticking that among other language talking about the science research makes me wonder exactly what they're referring to (please pardon my ending this sentence in a preposition). If they mean they want to make sure women don't turn into baby machines a la The Handmaid's Tale, I'm in agreement. It just sounds weird to have it stuck in there (I mean, don't they also want to make sure there is no exploitation of men in the application of life sciences?). I'm waiting for the resolution to be published on the UN site to see what other discussion there is surrounding this part of the document.

UN Committee Calls for Total Ban on Human Cloning

The UN has been debating how to address embryonic cloning and research for at least the last 4 years. Last fall, a UN committee was looking into two different proposals, one that would call on all members to ban such research, the other that would allow each member state to decide for itself.

Now, a UN general assembly committee has voted 71 to 35 (with 43 abstentions) to take the proposal for banning such research before the full UN assembly.

Stem Cell Lines Contaminated

Woo boy. This just doesn't sound good. The US federal government had already restricted funding of stem cell research to work using stem cell lines that were in existence as of the date of President Bush's address to the nation seven months after taking office in his first term.  Since then, there have been varied responses to the restricted funding - some U.S. scientists have left for Europe, where some countries (like the UK) are more supportive; some schools report a drop-off in the number of US students taking up related research because of the uncertainty of a job; and there has been a spate of states raising initiatives to fund stem cell research with state money.

Even with the increase in state money, though, one thing is still needed - stem cell lines. Even with piles of money, you can't do embyronic stem cell research without those cells, after all. Privately created stem cell lines are difficult for researchers to access and the ones remaining that were okayed by the federal government for federal funds were dwindling. And now we receive the not-so-good news that the non-private lines have been contaminated.

UN Shelves Cloning Treaties for Now

Despite efforts by Costa Rica (and the US) on the one hand and Belgium on the other, the UN will not be making any decision this year on a treaty related to embryonic cloning. The UN shelved both of the draft treaties that had been up for consideration on the issue.

Stem Cell Research Sees Renewed Competition and Support

Following the passage of Prop. 71 in California, which allocates $3BN over 10 years to the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (which will give out the grants and loans to the California universities and related labs) for stem cell research, most thought that it would reinvigorate the industry which had been in a bit of a lull due to the ban on federal funds for therapeutic cloning. But few predicted that it would be reinvigorated so quickly and with such enthusiasm.

Proposition 71 to Fund Stem Cell Research Passes in California

In addition to the big election for President and the myriad of other offices that were up for grabs last Tuesday, many ballot initiatives in the states made big news. Californians passed Proposition 71, which will put $3BN ($300MN for each of the next 10 years) toward stem cell research and, it is hoped, make California one of the world leaders in the industry.

UN Delays Vote on Cloning

Pardon the quick blog post on this topic (more to come later, but I am still traveling with spotty time for 'netting). The legal committee of the UN finished its debate on different proposals regarding human cloning last Friday without taking an official vote, thus delaying taking any position on the issue.

The US is pushing for a total ban, along with about 60 other member states, stating that cloning erodes the dignity of human life. Another proposal, entered by Belgium and supported by about 20 member states and Kofi Annan, would prohibit human cloning but allow each state to decide on options related to therapeutic cloning and research.

It is not immediately clear when the final vote will take place, and UN committee members deny that the US presidential race hae anything to do with the delay. Stay tuned to hear more about the proposals entered and how the member states come down on the issue.

Cloning Research May be Constitutionally Protected

While the exact issue of whether scientific research, including stem cell and cloning-related research, is absolutely protected by the U.S. Constitution has not been conclusively decided by the Supreme Court (or other judicial entity), there are certain scientists, ethicists and legal experts who believe that scientific research is subject to such protection. In the NY Times yesterday, there was a short article on how, while the current President's Council on Bioethics would prefer to keep the Constitutionality of certain policies out of the picture, they may face a stern challenge if one arose.

It seems that only a very few may claim that scientific research doesn't merit some Constitutional protection. What the protection of the 1st Amendment runs at odds with, though, are the funding restrictions often placed by the government (for instance, the current ban on federal funding of research with new stem cell lines). What is the line that will be drawn for when the restriction on funding becomes a de facto ban on that type of research in general? When does the Executive Branch's power to dictate funding options for scientific research become trumped by the 1st Amendment?

No Rate Hike for UK Stem Cell License

Earlier this year, scientists in the UK looking to get a license from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) were concerned about a proposed rate hike of 3000% from 200 to 6000 pounds. Scientists throughout the country cried foul and noted that such a rate hike could stifle innovation and hamper their resources and budgets in research.

It looks like the rate hike won't be nearly so large, only 325% to 750 pounds for certain research.