|
the Stem Cell Page time and ignorance are the enemies |
|
International Actions on Embryonic Stem Cell Research |
|
The following was reported by the Congressional Research Service in a report for Congress by Judith A. Johnson, specialist in Life Sciences, and Erin D. Williams, specialist in Bioethical Policy, both of the Domestic Social Policy Division.
The international community has taken a variety of action regarding stem cell research. In November 2004, the UNGA “averted a divisive vote” on two international conventions against human cloning by adopting Italy’s proposal “to take up the issue again as a declaration at a resumed February session.” “A convention is a legally binding treaty, coming into force upon ratification by a certain number of States. A declaration is not legally binding but carries moral weight because it is adopted by the international community.” Two convention proposals had been under consideration. One, introduced by Costa Rica and backed by the United States, aimed to proscribe all human embryonic cloning. A second proposal, introduced by Belgium, sought to proscribe only reproductive cloning. Both convention proposals were supplanted by the adoption of the Italy’s proposal for a declaration. On March 8, 2005, the United Nations General Assembly (TJNGA) approved a nonbinding resolution urging member states to adopt legislation “to prohibit all forms of human cloning in as much as they are incompatible with human dignity and the protection of human life.” The resolution passed with a vote of 84 to 34 and 37 abstentions; the United States voted for the measure.
To allow initial EU funding for stem cell research (under FP6), the EU clarified its stem cell rules in November 2003.10 I Under the terms of its FP6, the EU was able to fund embryonic stem cell research regardless of the date that the stem cells were procured from embryos. A cut-off date, which would have created a restriction similar to the one in the 2001 Bush policy, was under consideration, but was dropped. FP6 allowed funding for research on tissue derived from “spontaneous or therapeutic abortion,” but not for the creation of human embryos for the purpose of stem cell procurement. FP6 implied but did not state that it would allow funding for research on embryos that remain after F/F, in that it “no longer required parental consent where embryos [had] to be destroyed in order to produce embryonic stem cell lines.” According to Members of the European Parliament, FP6 funding decisions depended “both upon the contents of the scientific proposal and the legal framework of the Member States involved.”
Allowing for the procurement of human embryonic stem cells from excess IVF embryos by law under certain conditions: Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Greece, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom (UK).
Prohibiting the procurement of human ES cells from excess IVF embryos: Austria, Ireland Lithuania, Poland and Slovak Republic.
No specific legislation regarding human embryo research or human ES cell research: Czech Republic, Luxembourg, Malta, Portugal and the republic of Cyprus.
Allowing by law for the creation of human embryos for research purposes: UK, Belgium, and Sweden allow by law for the creation of human embryos either by fertilization of an egg by a sperm, or by somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT, also called therapeutic cloning) for stem cell procurement. The Dutch Embryo Act of 2002 includes a five-year moratorium for the creation of embryos for research purposes including by SCNT.
Non-EU countries have enacted measures that promote or prohibit ES research as well. For example, Japan, Columbia and China permit therapeutic cloning as well as ES research. Canada allows stem cell and other research to be conducted on donated embryos created but no longer needed for reproductive purposes, and prohibits all forms of human cloning. Israel permits and Turkey does not prohibit ES research, and both permit therapeutic cloning and prohibit reproductive cloning. Likewise, India, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Pen, South Africa, Tunisia, and Uruguay either allow or do not prohibit ES research, however they also ban both therapeutic and reproductive cloning. Ecuador bans ES research as well as reproductive and therapeutic cloning. Certain countries’ activities designed to regulate and promote stem cell research have come to the attention of Congress. Several governments, including those of France, Germany, Finland, Italy, and Brazil reportedly provide $4-10 million of public funding for the research. Others have invested more:
Australia In 2002, the Australian government awarded a grant of $43.55 million, which was complemented by a $10 million award from the State Government of Victoria, to establish and maintain the Australian Stem Cell Centre. In May 2004, the Prime Minister announced a further $55 million grant to support the Centre’s activities from 2006 to 2011. Australia permits the use of spare IVF embryos for stem cell and in July 2005, the government set up an independent committee to review the controlling laws and consider whether they should be relaxed to permit more types of ES research. The Chinese government has reportedly spent approximately $40 million on ES research, where the climate is described as “probably the most liberal environment for embryo research in the world.” China has no laws governing ES research, although an endorsement from the Ministry of Health is required. While the Israeli government has reportedly spent only $5 million on ES research, private funding is estimated to be $15-30 million. As noted above, both therapeutic cloning and the production of new ES lines are permitted. Singapore, which allows scientists to clone human embryos and keep them alive for up to 14 days to extract the stem cells, is reported to have “research-friendly policies and generous government funding have already helped jump-start the tiny city-state’s nascent stem cell sector. ... Singapore and the New York-based Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation International launched a $3 million funding program to support stem cell research [in Singapore], ... [and in May 2004, Singapore unveiled] its resort-like Biopolis, created to give biotech researchers and their families a place to live and work. Academic and industrial spending on ES research in the country reportedly total $20 million. The South Korean government has reportedly spent approximately $10 million on ES research, and the private sector $50 million. South Korea, the home of the doctor who announced in February 2004 that he had cloned human embryos and extracted stem cells from them, subsequently enacted legislation to regulate and license reproductive cloning: the Bioethics and Biosafety Act.
The act allows the continuation of some existing ES and embryo research, specifically permits governmental support for adult stem cell research, and prohibits reproductive human cloning and the transfer of embryos between different species. It allows, with a government-issued permit, the creation human embryos via IVF for reproductive purposes, and the use of some remaining embryos for research related to incurable diseases specified by presidential decree. By the same regulatory process, the act also allows the cloning and the creation of embryo clones for research purposes.
The Swedish government has reportedly spent $10-$15 million on ES research, which is complimented by private funding of $35 million per year. As noted above, both the production of new ES lines, and therapeutic cloning are legal in the country. The government of the UK has reportedly provided $80 million for ongoing research which has been complimented by $15-$20 million of private funds. In February 2005, leading names from science, industry and government in the UK formed the Stem Cell Foundation, calling for L100 million to fund the center and maintain the UK as one of the world leaders in stem cell research.
As noted above, the UK allows and regulates the production of new ES lines and therapeutic cloning, which may be funded by the federal government under the terms of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act of 1990 (HFEA). In 2004, the government announced that it would review the HFEA to ensure that the law remains effective, broadly acceptable to society, and fit for purpose in the early 21st century. One component of the review, a public consultation, is ongoing through November 2005. |
|
To contact us: Click Here |