Should we clone human beings? Cloning as a source of tissue for transplantation.
(1/171)
The most publicly justifiable application of human cloning, if there is one at all, is to provide self-compatible cells or tissues for medical use, especially transplantation. Some have argued that this raises no new ethical issues above those raised by any form of embryo experimentation. I argue that this research is less morally problematic than other embryo research. Indeed, it is not merely morally permissible but morally required that we employ cloning to produce embryos or fetuses for the sake of providing cells, tissues or even organs for therapy, followed by abortion of the embryo or fetus. (+info)
Human embryonic stem cells and respect for life.
(2/171)
The purpose of this essay is to stimulate academic discussion about the ethical justification of using human primordial stem cells for tissue transplantation, cell replacement, and gene therapy. There are intriguing alternatives to using embryos obtained from elective abortions and in vitro fertilisation to reconstitute damaged or dysfunctional human organs. These include the expansion and transplantation of latent adult progenitor cells. (+info)
Interim report on human in vitro fertilisation approved.(3/171)
Embryonic stem cell production through therapeutic cloning has fewer ethical problems than stem cell harvest from surplus IVF embryos.
(7/171)
Restrictions on research on therapeutic cloning are questionable as they inhibit the development of a technique which holds promise for successful application of pluripotent stem cells in clinical treatment of severe diseases. It is argued in this article that the ethical concerns are less problematic using therapeutic cloning compared with using fertilised eggs as the source for stem cells. The moral status of an enucleated egg cell transplanted with a somatic cell nucleus is found to be more clearly not equivalent to that of a human being. Based on ethical considerations alone, research into therapeutic cloning should be encouraged in order to develop therapeutic applications of stem cells. (+info)
Patents and innovation in cancer therapeutics: lessons from CellPro.
(8/171)
This article discusses the interaction between intellectual property and cancer treatment. CellPro developed a stem cell separation technology based on research at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center. A patent with broad claims to bone marrow stem cell antibodies had been awarded to Johns Hopkins University and licensed to Baxter Healthcare under the 1980 Bayh-Dole Act to promote commercial use of inventions from federally funded research. CellPro got FDA approval more than two years before Baxter but lost patent infringement litigation. NIH elected not to compel Hopkins to license its patents to CellPro. CellPro went out of business, selling its technology to its competitor. Decisions at both firms and university licensing offices, and policies at the Patent and Trademark Office, NIH, and the courts influenced the outcome. (+info)