Private Sector Oversight
Although public funds have been expended in support of adult stem
cell research, to date all advances in human embryonic and fetal germ cell
research have come from the private sector, under-written by biotechnology
companies in the hope that products will be developed for medical therapy. This raises important questions about whether
ethical and broader social considerations can be adequately addressed by
continued exclusive funding by the private sector. The addition of the public oversight that accompanies federal
funding offers substantial advantages.
Such advantages include increased research productivity, earlier results
from the research, a broader range of participation by academic scientists,
increased public understanding and support, and greater possibilities that
therapies will be developed with consideration for the public good will.
Private sector sponsorship of
research certainly does not preclude a degree of oversight or adherence to
ethical practices. Geron Corporation,
the private company sponsor of all published human embryonic and germ cell
research to date, convened an Ethics Advisory Board (EAB) in September 1998 to
develop guidelines for the ethical conduct of stem cell research. The EAB sought further public discourse by
inviting The Hastings Center Report to
publish its findings complete with dissenting views. If such boards were to become
institutionalized by the private sector, they would have the most credibility
and weight if they reviewed ethical and social issues during the start-up phase
of research, had a multi-disciplinary membership, including representatives
from the local community, and gave minimum, if any, financial compensation for
service. Their impact would be greatest
if they shared their own findings and recommendations with other companies. However, even with the best of intentions,
if a private company establishes its own EAB but disapproves of the Board’s
findings, there is no guarantee that the company would abide by the EAB’s
conclusions and recommendations. This
could undermine public confidence and raise anxiety about the manner in which
stem cell research is proceeding.
There are other concerns
associated with sole reliance on private sector funding of stem cell
research. There is the very real
possibility that market forces and perceived investment opportunities by
companies will, in the absence of federal funding, exert a disproportionately
powerful influence on the development of stem cell research without adequate
attention to public priorities. One
result could be that the focus of such research will be on diseases likely to
lead to profit at the expense of less common but more severe diseases. There is also the possibility that stem
cells will become caught up in an expanded marketing of human body parts. In a day when the market for individual
genes, or even gene fragments, holds lucrative possibilities,great caution should be taken in ceding domain to this area of research to the
private sector in the absence of open and widespread public consultation.
Email
link | Printer-friendly | Feedback
| Contributed by: AAAS DoSER and the Institute for
Civil Society
|
