Which bank? A guardian model for regulation of embryonic stem cell research in Australia

In late 2005 the Legislation Review: Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002 (Cth) and the Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002 (Cth) recommended the establishment of an Australian stem cell bank. This article aims to address a lack of discussion of issues surrounding stem cell banking by suggesting possible answers to the questions of whether Australia should establish a stem cell bank and what its underlying philosophy and functions should be. Answers are developed through an analysis of regulatory, scientific and intellectual property issues relating to embryonic stem cell research in the United Kingdom, United States and Australia. This includes a detailed analysis of the United Kingdom Stem Cell Bank. It is argued that a "guardian" model stem cell bank should be established in Australia. This bank would aim to promote the maximum public benefit from human embryonic stem cell research by providing careful regulatory oversight and addressing ethical issues, while also facilitating research by addressing practical scientific concerns and intellectual property issues.     

Regulating tissue research: do we need additional rules to protect research participants?

This article explores whether additional rules are needed for the regulation of tissue research in Europe. A human rights-based approach (referring to international documents and illustrative examples from national legislation) is taken to address the question: what is so special about tissue, in particular when compared to personal data? The existing regimes in Europe on data protection and clinical trials are presented and examined for their suitability to govern tissue research, taking into account the differences between data and tissue. Six recommendations are outlined, highlighting important points future legislation on tissue research must take into account.     

Embryonic stem cell research: one small step for science or one giant leap back for mankind?

At the forefront of modern debate over the ethical use of biotechnology is embryonic stem cell research. In this poignant analysis of its legitimacy, the author examines the history of this research in light of the United States' policy favoring the protection of human beings over scientific progress. Stem cells, which can divide in culture to create specialized cells in the human body, possess significant potential for curing disease, particularly when taken from human embryos. However, as evidenced by the research atrocities committed under the Nazi regime, the benefits of human research do not come without a cost to humanity. Recognizing this, the later trial of these scientists produced the Nuremberg Code, a set of natural law principles guiding future research on humans that continues to influence health policy decisions. Drawing on this background, the author first considers the appropriate legal status for a human embryo. Biologically, the characteristics of a human embryo place it between human tissue and a constitutional person. Judicially, the answer is even less clear. The author analyzes case law in the context of abortion and in vitro fertilization, as well as classifications by the common law, state legislation, and the National Bioethics Advisory Commission, to conclude that a human embryo should be subject to the same legal and ethical restrictions as any other "human subject." Accordingly, the author argues that embryonic stem cell research violates the ethical standards and purposes of the Nuremberg Code and should be banned by federal legislation. Such a prohibition will fulfill the societal policy choice of protecting potential life and vulnerable human subjects.     

What Are the Obstacles to Defense Counsel?

Many years ago, at a session of the USSR Supreme Soviet, Deputy I. A. Kairov uttered these words of bitter truth: "A kind of strange attitude still persists toward defense lawyers as if in some way they were impediments rather than contributors to the administration of justice."     

(Why) should we require consent to participation in research?

It is widely accepted that informed consent is a requirement of ethical biomedical research. It is less clear why this is so. As an argumentative strategy the article asks whether it would be legitimate for the state to require people to participate in research. This article argues that the consent requirement cannot be defended by appeal to any simple principle, such as not treating people merely as a means, bodily integrity, and autonomy. As an argumentative strategy the article asks whether it would be legitimate for the state to require people to participate in research. I argue that while it would be legitimate and potentially justifiable to coerce people to participate in research as a matter of first-order moral principles, there are good reasons to adopt a general prohibition on coercive participation as a matter of second-order morality.     

Examining the Paradox of Crime Reporting: Are Disadvantaged Victims More Likely to Report to the Police?

This study uses an intersectional approach to examine the “paradox” that disadvantaged victims often mobilize the police, despite their distrust and lack of confidence in the law. Data from the National Crime Victimization Survey (1994–2016) were analyzed using logistic regression to model the predicted probabilities of police notification by victims of crime. Economic disadvantage, as measured by family poverty and lack of a high school education, increased the probability that females reported their victimization to the police, but decreased the likelihood that males did so. Economically disadvantaged black females had the highest probability of reporting, while economically disadvantaged black and Hispanic males had the lowest. Examining the intersectional differences across social groups shows that reporting behavior is not just a function of one attribute but rather is a function of multiple identities and structural inequalities.     

How to benefit from publicly funded pre-competitive research: an empirical investigation for Germany’s ICR program

This paper contributes to the debate on the systemic effects of technology policy by investigating spillovers of pre-competitive publicly funded Industrial Collective Research (ICR) in Germany which is carried out by non-profit research institutes. Using data for 911 firms surveyed in 2006, the results show that non-actively involved firms in ICR projects use ICR results to a large extent. Almost all of these firms are engaged in collaborative research projects with non-profit research institutes. We conclude that company–scientists linkages are an important pre-requisite to absorb ICR results by non-actively involved firms in ICR projects.     

HPSA and the Anti-Kickback safe harbor: are we sending doctors to the right neighborhoods?

This article explores the problems within a niche area of health law, the Health Professional Shortage Area (HPSA) safe harbor of the Anti-Kickback Statute. The author advocates for its removal by discussing how the HPSA designation is being used incorrectly to curb fraudulent behavior and how the current provision serves few hospitals. The author concludes by suggesting innovative solutions to remedy the problems with the current HPSA designation system.