Research ethics, science policy, and four contexts for the stem cell debate.

There are plainly conscientious differences of opinion among scientists, politicians, and the public in respect of both the ethics of embryonic stem cell research and the more general question of the role of public policy in setting parameters for what is legal and what is funded in the biosciences. Although professional discussion of embryonic stem cell research is not hampered by the often misleading oversimplifications of the press, it remains true that the wide range of ethical options is rarely explored. These varied positions arise from a series of at least six logically distinct policy options, which we may summarize in these terms: (a) All use of human embryos for research is wrong. (b) Excess in vitro embryos may be used, but others should not be created for the purpose. (c) In vitro embryos, but not clonal embryos, may be created with the intent of using them for research. (d) Clonal embryos, but not in vitro embryos, may be created with the intent of using them for research. (e) Only certain excess embryos destroyed before a certain date should be used. (f) Only certain excess embryos created before a certain date should be used. Moreover, in any policy permitting research use of the embryo, two further sets of issues are raised. First is the question of consent. Second is the question of time limits. As advancements in biotechnology shape the possibilities of the twenty-first century and hold out both promise and threat to the human future, it is crucial that we develop a national and global conversation that both encourages science and its potential and takes wider social responsibility for the purposes for which science is engaged.

Nanotechnology and the human future: policy, ethics, and risk.

The extraordinary potential of nanoscale research and development has yet to be matched in the growth of public awareness of the technology and its implications for society. Groups have emerged that are highly critical of the technology, and others that see it as the key to the radical transformation of human nature itself. Between these extremes, the direction of federal policy has been to encourage the technology while respecting the integrity of the human condition. Experience with genetically modified foods in Europe, where they are widely known as "Frankenfoods," suggests that wide public acceptance of a new technology is crucial to its economic success. A focus on the ethical, legal, and societal implications of the technology, and especially respect for human nature, is therefore prudent. But it is not enough to fund research on societal questions; respect for the human condition must frame the development of nanotechnology. This article draws upon our experiences with biotechnology to better understand the issues we face as developments in nanotechnology begin to impact society.