This study compares stem cell research policymaking by legislators and citizens in the United States. First, using exit poll results from a 2006 stem cell research initiative in Missouri, the study finds that deeply held personal values such as religious beliefs and views of abortion predominate in an individual’s voting decision on this issue; second, an analysis of voting behavior by senators on the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005 finds that senators make their voting decisions based on their personal policy preferences rather than their constituents’ preferences; and third, the complexity of the Missouri citizen initiative is compared with that of the legislation in the U.S. Senate, finding that the language of the citizen initiative is more sophisticated than the language of the legislative act. These findings provide the context for a broader discussion of the role of citizens and legislators in making policy for science.

This paper examines the contextual factors shaping legislative debates affecting stem cell research in two states, Kansas and Massachusetts, which both permit therapeutic cloning for stem cell research but markedly vary in their legislative approach to the issue. In Kansas, restrictive legislation was proposed but effectively blocked by research proponents, while in Massachusetts permissive legislation was successfully implemented under the auspices of an act to promote stem cell research. The importance of university and industry involvement is highlighted in each case, as are the roles of enterprising and persistent policy entrepreneurs. Providing a close examination of the policy process attending the cloning debate in these states is intended to contribute to an enhanced understanding of the cloning-policy process as it has played out at the state level, with an eye toward informing legislative debates over related biotechnical advances in the future.

In response to former President George W. Bush's funding limitations on human embryonic stem cell (hESC) research, California voters in 2004 passed Proposition 71, the most expansive state-funded medical research initiative in United States history. This study examines California's experiment in the life sciences, a particularly fitting analysis now as President Barack Obama has freed up additional federal funding for hESC research. In addition to exploring the general pitfalls of states, rather than the federal government, serving as principal players on hESC science and the perceived flaws in California's program, the analysis considers the strengths of state activism and of California's enterprise. On balance, given the Bush administration's policy on hESC research, the U.S. benefitted from state innovation. Moreover, even with the new federal regulatory policy on hESC research, California should be able to mesh its program with the federal initiative and remain a prime mover in this arena. The essay draws on informal interviews with key actors in California and on Capitol Hill in 2008 and 2009.

In China ideology has played an important role in the research and teaching of the biological sciences since the establishment of the People’s Republic of China (PRC). After the 1978 reforms, it was recognized that the discontinuation of political interference with the sciences was essential for their survival and development. However, not much later, when the fields of genetics and molecular biology became redefined as life sciences, internationally, bioethical regulation became an essential element of research regulation. The evolution of medical textbooks in the PRC reflects this. Using the cases of human cloning and human embryonic stem cell research, this article shows how science regulation incorporates cultural and political ideologies. These, on the one hand, form a continuation of modes of state propaganda and, on the other hand, embody newly formulated notions of Chinese society. This article provides a historical background of the role of ideology during the first decades of the PRC, after which it discusses the evolution of bioethical discussion of human cloning and human embryonic stem cell research in 17 medical textbooks over nine years (1996–2005). It concludes with a discussion on the changing role of ideology in bioethical policy-making for the life sciences.

This article engages with the frequently made claim that the UK has a transparent, accountable and strict but permissive regulatory approach to research using pre-implantation human embryos created in vitro and that this approach provides reassurance to the public in a particularly emotive area, has the full confidence of the scientific and medical research communities, and gives the UK a competitive advantage in the international field of stem cell research. Aborted fetuses are another controversial source of stem cells although their use is less widely known. The paper uses Jasanoff’s conceptual tool of framing to analyse the history of the legislative and governance arrangements for the collection of aborted fetuses for use in stem cell research and therapies in Britain. We argue that the arrangements are confused, lack transparency, are out of line with current good practice on seeking consent, and that non-compliance with regulations is condoned. Furthermore, in our view, the separation of legal and governance arrangements for collection and use of pre-implantation human embryos and aborted fetuses will increasingly become problematic, and we conclude by proposing that there is increasingly a potential for conflict between them.

The purpose of this article is to comment upon an interesting gap in the criticism heaped upon Woo Suk Hwang following the revelation that his apparently groundbreaking stem cell research involved both the falsification of data and the unethical recruitment of egg donors. It is, of course, unsurprising that his fraudulent research and a possible breach of the Helsinki Declaration have come under considerable scrutiny. More interesting, in my view, is that there has been very little interest in the fact that human embryos may have been pointlessly destroyed. It is generally believed that research involving human embryos is legitimate only when it serves an important scientific purpose. Hwang’s research could serve no useful scientific purpose, and hence it would be difficult, if not impossible, to justify the destruction of embryos. I ask whether the comparative lack of interest in this aspect of the Korean stem cell research scandal points to a shift in our attitudes towards the instrumental use of the early human embryo.