Social distancing and stay-at-home measures provided scientists with a natural experiment to study social phenomena that hinge precisely on human mobility and contact — including criminal activity. A study by Center for the U.S. and Mexico experts and co-authors explores the relationship between COVID-19 and criminal activity in Mexico.

Abstract

This article assesses Mexico’s organized crime alliance and subgroup network structures. Through social network…

Scientists and members of the public exploring the controversial area of U.S. human embryo and embryoid research will find a complex and sometimes bewildering assortment of federal and state laws. The authors recommend additional guidance, but note slow progress in the development of embryo research policy.

It now seems technically feasible to culture human embryos beyond the “fourteen‐day limit,” which has the potential to increase scientific understanding of human development and perhaps improve infertility treatments. Robust stakeholder engagement preceded adoption of the fourteen‐day limit and should arguably be part of efforts to reassess it, write the authors.

To understand the variations and impact of national policies, the authors reviewed and analyzed IVF, hESC and human embryo research laws or national guidelines currently in place in the top R&D-investing nations. Regenerative Medicine, Aug. 17, 2020.

Regenerative medicine and stem cell research are exciting new fields. But as the fields progress toward clinical therapies, controversies emerge. Hype surrounding stem cell research has caused an increase in their use in interventions that are not clinically proven. Furthermore, the regulatory agencies have a lot of difficulty dealing with cell therapies, which are distinctly different from drugs and medical devices they more commonly approve. To move the field forward, advocates, regulators and scientists need to come together to find new options for stem cell research oversight that protects both the patients and the research field.

Biotechnology scientists must be aware of the broad patent landscape and push for new patent and licensing guidelines, according to a new paper from the Baker Institute.

Despite the political nature of stem cell research, this area of science continues to flourish in the United States. In 2011, the NIH funded approximately US$1.2 billion in stem cell research — a steady increase from past years — with US$123 million devoted to human embryonic stem cells. According to the ISI Web of Science, more than 4,000 U.S.-authored stem cell publications were produced in 2011, accounting for approximately 38 percent of the world total. Approximately one-quarter of these publications were collaborations with authors from other countries.

In this article, the authors compare two different approaches to establishing stem cell policy: a defined policy (U.K.) and a changing policy (U.S.). The U.K. has a clear and precise policy, agreed upon and supported by lawmakers, scientists and the public. By contrast, U.S. federal policy is continuously being updated based on balancing political ideologies and advances in science, and it only regulates federal funding. By investigating these contrasting policy approaches, the authors hope to demonstrate the impact of policy on stem cell research and public opinion.