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 case study approach to estimating the burden of research misconduct in publicly funded medical research

The economic impact of research misconduct in medical research has been unexplored. While research misconduct in publicly funded medical research has increasingly been the object of discussion, public policy debate, government and institutional action, and scientific research, the costs of research misconduct have been unexamined. The author develops a model to estimate the per case cost of research misconduct, specifically the costs of fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism, in publicly funded medical research. Using the database of Research Misconduct Findings maintained by the Office of Research Integrity, Department of Health and Human Services, the model is used to estimate costs of research misconduct in public funded medical research among faculty during the period 2000-2005.^

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. ^

InGen of creative production in the health sciences: A workbook companion to innovation generation

InGen of Creative Production in the Health Sciences is a compendium of innovative thinking exercises for individuals and groups, derived from an eclectic array of practical guides for professionals in a variety of fields. Segmented into five subcategories across twenty two chapters, the effort seeks to make techniques for increasing innovative problem solving more accessible to a diverse audience of problem solvers. The chapters of Roberta Ness. Innovation Generation (2012, Oxford University Press) provide the themes for each of the chapters in the workbook. It is intended that those who read Ness. Innovation Generation will benefit from practicing the constructs of innovative thinking exemplified in each exercise.^ The methods used to gather data, in this case mostly innovative thinking exercises, included literature reviews of existing innovative thinking tools, classroom materials, and theory-driven exploration of exercises to fill in gaps in extant materials. Specifically, Google.com and Amazon.com searches were conducted using the terms “innovation,” “innovative,” “innovator,” “creative,” “novelty,” “thinking,” together with some variance of “book,” “workbook,” and “exercise.” The results were sorted thematically to show correspondence with the themes in Ness (2012) and compared to suggested best practices of 50 years of scientific research on innovative thinking. Where themes were suggested by Ness (2012) and peer-reviewed research on innovation but unavailable in published innovation thinking workbooks, new exercises were developed. The five type subcategories into which these results were organized are: individual direct, individual indirect, group direct, group indirect and probing question. It is anticipated that the five type subcategories and spectrum of themes will equip problem solvers in a variety of capacities.^