Search

For the field of pluripotent stem cell biology to realize its promising future, current researchers will need to pass the torch to new generations. We asked a group of successful scientists in this area, “What advice would you give a young person considering a career in stem cell research?”

Document S1. Supplemental Findings, Supplemental Methods, Supplemental References, and One TablexDownload (.06 MB ) Document S1. Supplemental Findings, Supplemental Methods, Supplemental References, and One Table

Under the newly passed Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA), the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office may hear new challenges to stem cell patents. Here, we explore how the new law affects challenges to stem cell patents, focusing on two recent cases, and discuss the future of stem cell patent disputes.

Using donated human embryos for scientific research raises ethical questions about the donation process. We describe a two-stage consent process designed to help couples make informed decisions about embryo disposition. This consent methodology minimizes conflict of interest, respects patient choice, and provides a much-needed resource to patients and the research community.

The nature of compensation for women who donate eggs (oocytes) for research remains a contentious issue internationally. This position paper lays out the arguments for, and discusses the arrangements in which, a modest payment might be ethically justifiable.

Though not directly addressed in the CJEU judgment, the question whether or not human iPSCs fall under the definition of human embryos will presumably be the subject of another reference for a preliminary ruling in future patent law case. But, as we have argued elsewhere, the mere potential of pluripotent stem cell types is not a sufficient reason to exclude them from patent protection (Vrtovec and Vrtovec, 2007xVrtovec, K.T. and Vrtovec, B. Stem Cells. 2007; 25: 3026–3028Crossref | PubMed | Scopus (4)See all ReferencesVrtovec and Vrtovec, 2007).However, it is becoming evident that the CJEU is extending the definition of human dignity to entities that in no way resemble fertilized human embryos awaiting potential implantation into a female uterus via in vitro fertilization. SCNT bypassed the need for sperm cells, and direct reprogramming avoided the need for ova. What we have been left as a starting material are the trillions of somatic cells found in every individual. Now, even these cells are caught by an overbroad and ill-conceived ruling.If the CJEU continues with its definition of human embryos, and regenerative medicine outside Europe produces more successful results, rebalancing existing equilibrium between promises and perils of stem cell research seems inevitable. Human dignity is a noble concept, but it is as useful insofar as it is concerned with the well-being of actual human beings. Europe should focus more on protecting the human dignity of terminally ill patients eagerly awaiting novel stem cell treatments than on safeguarding the human dignity of each and every somatic cell in our body.

This report considers whether research involving the creation of human-animal interspecies somatic cell nuclear transfer (iSCNT) embryos raises new ethical issues, and if so, whether it requires additional or special criteria and oversight distinct from research on human-animal chimeras.

The patenting of human embryonic stem (hES) cells has produced one of the most unusual and fraught situations in the history of science, ethics, and law. This Commentary examines legal and moral challenges to three foundational patents held by the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF). We conclude that, in the United States, technical challenges may, paradoxically, produce a stronger patent position for WARF. In the European Union, moral challenges mean confusion for member states. We demonstrate that hES cell intellectual property will be guided and bound by a welter of moral, technical, and legal inputs, with discrete national and jurisdictional dimensions.