Research Library

The safety and efficacy of many stem cell treatments remain unproven by the FDA, yet state laws promote access and use of these unchecked and potentially harmful treatments. Fellow Kirstin R.W. Matthews summarizes her recent publication in a new commentary — outlining public health consequences of these state laws and calling for scientific societies’ advocacy in state policymaking.

The number of anti-vaccine bills filed in Texas has risen, yet many Texans support vaccine policy. Fellow Kirstin R.W. Matthews and nonresident scholar Rekha Lakshmanan examine the stakes of legislative engagement in public health initiatives and provide a call to action for Texans to embrace public health as an act of freedom.

For research involving human embryos and other controversial subjects, science journals should require ethics statements from researchers detailing research oversight, what embryos were used, how many and for how long. This will help increase transparency and improve communication with the public, writes Science and Technology Policy Fellow Kirstin R.W. Matthews.

As false or inaccurate information about stem cell interventions continues to circulate widely, the authors write that immediate action is needed to improve patient education and safety — and to combat misinformation more broadly.

To better reflect the iterative collaboration necessary for scientific progress, the Nobel Prize must expand its recognition to the many contributors of winning discoveries as well as diversify the selection committee, thereby also expanding recognition of the work of underrepresented minorities, argues this Baker Institute Blog post.

Despite internal changes in how scientists are nominated for the Nobel Prize, there is still a substantial gender bias in prize recipients. Concrete policy changes are needed to ensure more diversity is reflected in the world’s most visible and prestigious scientific honor, write experts Kenneth M. Evans, Kirstin R.W. Matthews and Daniel Moralí. Baker Institute blog: http://bit.ly/2MDRDbW

While the U.S. still maintains the overall lead in Nobel prizes (with the exception of literature), the rate at which American scientists have been awarded the prize has declined since the late 1970s. Fellow Kirstin R.W. Matthews and postdoctoral fellow Kenneth M. Evans explore the state of scientific collaboration in the U.S. in this Baker Institute blog: https://bit.ly/2yiNhzF

In physics, extensive collaborations, access to colleagues’ data and rigorous peer review make it extremely difficult for individual researchers to bend the rules. Furthermore, physics does not harbor the types of ethical minefields characteristic of the biosciences. No thorny questions arise pertaining to human or animal life, nor do physicists commonly grapple with the ethical haze of intellectual property when patents and money are at stake. Things seem to be black and white in physics. But are they?

In a recent commentary, Baker Institute science and technology policy experts described two international court cases that aimed to define “research” — and that ultimately arrived at two different answers. “What makes this interesting is that the courts’ definition of ‘research’ was based on politics — what the court wanted the end result to be,” said Kirstin Matthews, the institute’s fellow in science and technology policy. To reach a decision prohibiting human embryonic stem cell (hESC) patents, the EU court ruled that “research” occurs in a continuum. To reach a decision supporting federal funding of stem cell research, the U.S. court ruled that “research” involves a specific project.