Research Library

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.

This study of biologists and physicists in the UK found that a majority of the respondents disagree with evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins’ “celebrity scientist” outreach approach and believe his work misrepresents science and the scientific research process.

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.

Analyzing over 2,800 articles from the top journals that include stem cell research in their publications, this study demonstrates the globalization of stem cell science.

This article, published in the online journal PLoS ONE, examines the impact of collaboration on publication significance in the United States and the United Kingdom, world leaders in stem cell research with disparate policies. The findings suggest that national stem cell policy differences and regulatory mechanisms driving international stem cell research in both countries did not affect the frequency of international collaborations, or even the countries with which the U.S. and U.K. most often collaborated.

As the scientific community globalizes, it is increasingly important to understand the effects of international collaboration on the quality and quantity of research produced. While it is generally assumed that international collaboration enhances the quality of research, this phenomenon is not well examined. Stem cell research is unique in that it is both politically charged and a research area that often generates international collaborations, making it an ideal case through which to examine international collaborations.

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.