Skip Navigation


Hum. Reprod. Advance Access originally published online on July 27, 2006
Human Reproduction 2006 21(10):2474-2481; doi:10.1093/humrep/del235
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF ) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
21/10/2474    most recent
del235v1
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (2)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Isasi, R. M.
Right arrow Articles by Knoppers, B. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Isasi, R. M.
Right arrow Articles by Knoppers, B. M.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2006. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

OPINION

Beyond the permissibility of embryonic and stem cell research: substantive requirements and procedural safeguards

Rosario M. Isasi1 and Bartha M. Knoppers

Centre de recherche en droit public (CRDP), Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada

1 To whom correspondence should be addressed at: Centre de recherche en droit public (CRDP), Faculté de Droit, Université de Montréal, C.P. 6128 succ. Centre-ville, Montréal, Québec, Canada H3C 3J7. E-mail: rosario.isasi{at}umontreal.ca

This report provides a comparative analysis of the regulation of embryonic stem cells and cloning research in 50 countries. The development of international stem cell consortia involving the exchange of materials, data and knowledge presumes ‘policy know-how’ on the varying positions and governing regulations of the various partners; knowledge is essential for the feasibility of such international collaborative projects. Across the spectrum of restrictive-to-liberal policies, requirements regarding the justification for or the setting of substantive limits on (i) embryo use and/or (ii) destruction in research are often present. These goals justify the regulation, the control and even the prohibition of embryonic stem cell and cloning research. Moreover, irrespective of whether a country adopts a restrictive or a liberal approach, there is significant symmetry in both the substantive and the procedural requirements. Procedural safeguards provide another layer of protection and control over the research. In reality, such safeguards may have a greater systemic impact than the substantive requirements. They can be subdivided into three broad categories: (i) safeguards relating to the stage of embryonic development, (ii) safeguards relating to the donors of blastocysts, gametes, embryos and somatic cells and (iii) requirements for research governance.

Key words: cloning/ethics/policy/stem cells


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.