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. ^

Lessons learned from nationwide vaccine programs: Comparing human papillomavirus, poliomyelitis vaccine, and swine flu

This assessment compares the human papillomavirus (HPV) nationwide vaccine to the poliomyelitis vaccine and the swine flu vaccine with the purpose of finding parallels and lessons in the controversies faced by the development and use of the vaccines. There are a number of great barriers that are facing the HPV vaccine to date. These controversies lie in dealing with the risk involved in taking the vaccine, how much control the government should have in administering the vaccine, how to communicate the risk to the public, and the cost-effectiveness of the vaccine versus treatment for cervical cancer. The lessons for the HPV vaccine that were learned after comparison and assessment of the controversies were: (1) plan ahead of time on how to inform the public if a risk develops from taking the HPV vaccination and it may be better to provide some information while the event is occurring, always being as truthful as possible, and later dispensing more information once all of the facts are known, (2) the human papillomavirus is not something that will become a pandemic in a short amount of time because the virus takes a long time to develop into cervical cancer, so if a major risk begins to show after continuing to develop and administer the vaccine for an amount of time, it may be better to take it off the market for a while and possibly reconfigure it to help eliminate some of the risks, (3) if side reactions and risks do develop and the government assumes liability for these reactions, the cost-effectiveness can be greatly affected, so it is important to be constantly checking to see if all the monetary and health benefits of the vaccine are outweighing any of the negative costs of the vaccine, and lastly, (4) the public must feel that every aspect of the vaccine, both good and bad, has been thought over and the benefits of taking the vaccine prevail over the negatives and that politics and commercial interests have nothing to do with the production and administration of the vaccine. ^