Industrial Biotechnology: To What Extent Is Responsible Innovation on the Agenda?

The UK Industrial Biotechnology (IB) Strategy presents a consistent plan to develop the IB sector but fails to endorse an innovation process that allows for input from multiple publics. This could be disadvantageous for the bioeconomy: there are notable cases where negligence to address societal dimensions has caused innovation failure.

Heritable Genome Editing in a Global Context: National and International Policy Challenges.

A central problem for the international governance of heritable germline gene editing is that there are important differences in attitudes and values as well as ethical and health care considerations around the world. These differences are reflected in a complicated and diverse regulatory landscape. Several publications have discussed whether reproductive uses would be legally permissible in individual countries and whether clinical applications could emerge in the context of regulatory gaps and gray areas. Systematic comparative studies that explore issues related to the governance of this technology from different national and international perspectives are needed to address the lack of knowledge in this area. In this research report, we contribute to filling this gap by presenting views of stakeholders in the United Kingdom on challenges to the governance of heritable genome editing. We present findings from a multistakeholder study conducted in the United Kingdom between October 2016 and January 2018 and funded by the Wellcome Trust. This research included interviews, literature analysis, and a workshop. We involved leading U.K. scientists, in vitro fertilization clinicians, and representatives from regulatory bodies, patient organizations, and other civil societal organizations, as well as fertility companies. Part one of this article explores stakeholder perceptions of possible global developments in heritable genome editing and associated risks and governance challenges. Part two presents a range of policy options that were generated during the workshop in relation to the challenges discussed in part one.

Attitudes Towards the Donation of Human Embryos for Stem Cell Research Among Chinese IVF Patients and Students.

Bioethical debates on the use of human embryos and oocytes for stem cell research have often been criticized for the lack of empirical insights into the perceptions and experiences of the women and couples who are asked to donate these tissues in the IVF clinic. Empirical studies that have investigated the attitudes of IVF patients and citizens on the (potential) donation of their embryos and oocytes have been scarce and have focused predominantly on the situation in Europe and Australia. This article examines the viewpoints on the donation of embryos for stem cell research among IVF patients and students in China. Research into the perceptions of patients is based on in-depth interviews with IVF patients and IVF clinicians. Research into the attitudes of students is based on a quantitative survey study (n=427). The empirical findings in this paper indicate that perceptions of the donation of human embryos for stem cell research in China are far more diverse and complex than has commonly been suggested. Claims that ethical concerns regarding the donation and use of embryos and oocytes for stem cell research are typical for Western societies but absent in China cannot be upheld. The article shows that research into the situated perceptions and cultural specificities of human tissue donation can play a crucial role in the deconstruction of politicized bioethical argumentation and the (often ill-informed) assumptions about "others" that underlie socio-ethical debates on the moral dilemmas of technology developments in the life sciences.

Global regulatory developments for clinical stem cell research: diversification and challenges to collaborations.

In this article, we explore regulatory developments in stem cell medicine in seven jurisdictions: Japan, China, India, Argentina, Brazil, the USA and the EU. We will show that the research methods, ethical standards and approval procedures for the market use of clinical stem cell interventions are undergoing an important process of global diversification. We will discuss the implications of this process for international harmonization and the conduct of multicountry clinical research collaborations. It will become clear that the increasing heterogeneity of research standards and regulations in the stem cell field presents a significant challenge to international clinical trial partnerships, especially with countries that diverge from the regulatory models that have been developed in the USA and the EU.

The pluralization of the international: Resistance and alter-standardization in regenerative stem cell medicine.

The article explores the formation of an international politics of resistance and 'alterstandardization' in regenerative stem cell medicine. The absence of internationally harmonized regulatory frameworks in the clinical stem cell field and the presence of lucrative business opportunities have resulted in the formation of transnational networks adopting alternative research standards and practices. These oppose, as a universal global standard, strict evidence-based medicine clinical research protocols as defined by scientists and regulatory agencies in highly developed countries. The emergence of transnational spaces of alter-standardization is closely linked to scientific advances in rapidly developing countries such as China and India, but calls for more flexible regulatory frameworks, and the legitimization of experimental for-profit applications outside of evidence-based medical care, are emerging increasingly also within more stringently regulated countries, such as the United States and countries in the European Union. We can observe, then, a trend toward the pluralization of the standards, practices, and concepts in the stem cell field.

Comparing national home-keeping and the regulation of translational stem cell applications: An international perspective.

A very large grey area exists between translational stem cell research and applications that comply with the ideals of randomised control trials and good laboratory and clinical practice and what is often referred to as snake-oil trade. We identify a discrepancy between international research and ethics regulation and the ways in which regulatory instruments in the stem cell field are developed in practice. We examine this discrepancy using the notion of 'national home-keeping', referring to the way governments articulate international standards and regulation with conflicting demands on local players at home. Identifying particular dimensions of regulatory tools - authority, permissions, space and acceleration - as crucial to national home-keeping in Asia, Europe and the USA, we show how local regulation works to enable development of the field, notwithstanding international (i.e. principally 'western') regulation. Triangulating regulation with empirical data and archival research between 2012 and 2015 has helped us to shed light on how countries and organisations adapt and resist internationally dominant regulation through the manipulation of regulatory tools (contingent upon country size, the state's ability to accumulate resources, healthcare demands, established traditions of scientific governance, and economic and scientific ambitions).

Standardization as situation-specific achievement: regulatory diversity and the production of value in intercontinental collaborations in stem cell medicine.

The article examines the role and challenges of scientific self-governance and standardization in inter-continental clinical research partnerships in stem cell medicine. The paper shows that - due to a high level of regulatory diversity - the enactment of internationally recognized standards in multi-country stem cell trials is a complex and highly situation-specific achievement. Standardization is imposed on a background of regulatory, institutional and epistemic-cultural heterogeneity, and implemented exclusively in the context of select clinical projects. Based on ethnographic data from the first trans-continental clinical trial infrastructure in stem cell medicine between China and the USA, the article demonstrates that locally evolved and international forms of experimental clinical research practices often co-exist in the same medical institutions. Researchers switch back and forth between these schemas, depending on the purposes of their research, the partners they work with, the geographic scale of research projects, and the contrasting demands for regulatory review, that result from these differences. Drawing on Birch's analysis of the role of standardization in international forms of capital production in the biosciences, the article argues that the integration of local knowledge institutions into the global bioeconomy does not necessarily result in the shutting down of localized forms of value production. In emerging fields of medical research, that are regulated in highly divergent ways across geographical regions, the coexistence of distinct modes of clinical translation allows also for the production of multiple forms of economic value, at varying spatial scales. This is especially so in countries with lenient regulations. As this paper shows, the long-standing absence of a regulatory framework for clinical stem cell applications in China, permits the situation-specific adoption of internationally recognized standards in some contexts, while enabling the continuation of localized forms of value production in others.