Current United States stem cell policy considerations and a recommendation for an alternative policy based on guidelines from existing international policies

Embryonic stem cell research is a widely debated topic in modern politics and religion. Differing views on the fetal rights conflict with the rights of an embryo. Those who believe an embryo has the same human qualities as a fetus accordingly believe embryonic stem cell research is unethical because it destroys a potential human life. However, scientists advocate the embryo does not have human qualities and should be used for valuable research in the stem cell field. Stem cell research may lead to vast developments in medical treatments, including cancer and brain conditions and injuries that are currently incurable. ^ The current stem cell policy introduced by President Bush in 2001 in an attempt to balance the moral issues with the need for scientific research has broad negative implications on the furthering of stem cell research. There is a limited diversity of available stem cell lines, there may be constitutional issues, there is an increasing disparity between the public and private research spheres, and the U.S. is struggling to maintain its scientific community. The U.S. must develop a new stem cell research policy that will balance the interest of science and public health with the moral issues that concern the public. ^ The United Kingdom allows researchers great liberty in conducting research, permitting the creation of embryos for the sole purpose of research, while Germany is equally conservative in their laws, as their policies support the philosophy that all embryos deserve the protection of full life. The United States should adopt a policy that takes the "middle ground" approach and permit research on excess embryos created for IVF purposes, rather than simply discarding those potentially valuable research tools. ^

Children with acute leukemia: A comparison of outcomes and cost-effectiveness from allogeneic blood stem cell and bone marrow transplantation

The relative merits of PBSCT versus BMT for children with standard and high risk hematologic malignancies remain unclear. In a retrospective single center study, we compared allogeneic peripheral blood stem cell transplantation (PBSCT) (n=30) with bone marrow transplantation (BMT) (n=110) in children with acute leukemia. We studied recipients of HLA matched sibling stem cells, and of stem cells from alternative donors (HLA mismatched and/or unrelated) and determined whether sourcing the stem cells from PB or marrow affected engraftment, incidence of acute and chronic GvHD, and disease-free survival at 1 year. Our results show a modest reduction in time to engraftment from PB stem cells and no greater risk of GvHD, but illustrate that the severity of the underlying disease is by far the greatest determinant of 1 year survival. Patients in the BMT group had a higher treatment success rate and lower costs than the recipients of the PBSCT within the standard but not the high risk disease group, where the treatment success rate and the cumulative costs were lower in the PBSCT group compared to the BMT group. Our current incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and analysis of uncertainty suggest that allogeneic transplantation of bone marrow grafts was a more cost-effective treatment option compared to peripheral blood stem cells in patients with standard risk childhood acute leukemia disease. For high risk disease our data are less prescriptive, since the differences were more limited and the range of costs much larger. Neither option demonstrated a clear advantage from a cost-effectiveness standpoint.^