Federal regulation of human embryonic stem cell research

President George W. Bush's 2001 statement, which laid out guidelines for research that uses human embryonic stem cells to qualify for federal funding, intends to prevent new embryonic stem cell lines from being developed, by prohibiting the federal funding of research that uses embryonic stem cell lines other than those that existed at the time of the policy's inception and were approved by the National Institutes of Health. This policy raises questions of medical and technological ethics and the governments' role in making decisions regarding the advancement of science based on moral and political opinions. Federal stem cell usage policy directly affects scientific research efforts that are currently on the path to understanding the mechanisms of cell differentiation and could potentially offer answers and therapies for disabilities and many chronic diseases. By reviewing the current literature on the background information on human embryonic stem cells, including what they are, where they come from, how they are used for research purposes, and the ethical controversy surrounding their use, I have researched and reported the impact of the 2001 policy on medical research. ^ Both those who support the current policy on human embryonic stem cell research and those who are advocates for policy change have relevant arguments and varying opinions on human embryonic stem cell usage itself. The ethical implication of how embryonic stem cells are obtained has led to fierce debate. This paper presents many arguments for and against hESC research in addition to the policy governing their use. This analysis concludes that the current policy on federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research should be revised to allow research using new stem lines to be eligible for federal funding under specific guidelines. Supporting evidence for this recommendation is provided.^

A critical assessment of the National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Program against the eras which shaped it

This research study offers a critical assessment of NIH's Consensus Development Program (CDP), focusing upon its historical and valuative bases and its institutionalization in response to social and political forces. The analysis encompasses systems-level, as well as interpersonal factors in the adoption of consensus as the mechanism for resolving scientific controversies in clinical practice application. Further, the evolution of the CDP is also considered from an ecological perspective as a reasoned adaptation by NIH to pressures from its supporters and clients for translating biomedical research into medical practice. The assessment examines federal science policy and institutional designs for the inclusion of the public interest and democratic deliberation.^ The study relies on three distinct approaches to social research. Conventional historical methods were utilized in the interpretation of social and political influences across eras on the evolution of the National Institutes of Health and its response to demands for accountability and relevance through its Consensus Development Program. An embedded single-case study was utilized for an empirical examination of the CDP mechanism through five exemplar conferences. Lastly, a sociohistorical approach was taken to the CDP in order to consider its responsiveness to the values of the eras which created and shaped it. An exploration of organizational behavior with considerations for institutional reform as a response to continuing political and social pressure, it is a study of organizational birth, growth, and response to demands from its environment. The study has explanatory import in its attempt to account for the creation, timing, and form of the CDP, relative to political, institutional, and cultural pressures, and predictive import thorough its historical view which provides a basis for informed speculation on the playing out of tensions between extramural and intermural scientists and the current demands for health care reform. ^

Perceptions of institutional support of community -based participatory research within prevention research centers

The Institute of Medicine (IOM) report on the future of health care states that the focus on health needs to shift to the management and prevention of chronic illnesses and that academic health centers (AHCs) should play an active role in this process through community partnerships (IOM, 2002). Grant funding from the National Institutes of Health and the creation of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Prevention Research Centers (PRC) across the county represent a transition toward more proactively seeking out community partnerships to better design and disseminate health promotion programs (Green, 2001). ^ The focus of the PRCs is to conduct rigorous, community-based, prevention research, to seek outcomes applicable to public health programs and policies. The PRCs work is to create and foster partnerships among public health and community organizations, to address health promotion and disease prevention issues (CDC, 2003). ^ The W.K. Kellogg Foundation defines CBPR as "a collaborative approach to research that equitably involves all partners in the research process and recognizes the unique strengths that each brings. CBPR begins with a research topic of importance to the community with the aim of combining knowledge and action for social change to improve community health." ^ In 1995, CDC asked the IOM to review the PRC program to examine the extent to which the program is providing the public health community with strategies to address public health problems in disease prevention and health promotion (IOM, 1997). No comprehensive evaluation n of the individual PRCs had ever been done (IOM, 1997). ^ The CDC was interested in understanding how it could better support the PRC program through improved management and oversight to influence the program's success. The CDC only represents one of the entities that influence the success of a PRC. Another key entity to consider is the support of and influence of the Schools of Public Health in which the PRCs reside. Using evaluation criteria similar to those that were developed by the IOM, this study examined how aspects of structural capacity of the Schools of Public Health in which the PRCs reside are perceived to influence PRC community-based research activities. ^