Edited by: Emma Kemp
©iStockphoto.com/Gennadiy Poznyakov
Medical travel for unproven stem-cell-based therapies is commonly referred to as stem cell tourism. In an article published in EMBO Reports [1], Zubin Master and David B. Resnik argue that stem cell scientists should take on more responsibility for tackling this problem. So what is their proposal and what questions does it raise?
Whilst acknowledging that additional regulations are needed, Master and Resnik propose specific actions they believe individual researchers should take. They focus on the long-accepted practice of openly sharing established research reagents between researchers worldwide. Specifically, Master and Resnik suggest the following:
- Scientists sharing stem cell lines and related reagents with colleagues overseas should do so under the terms of legally-binding material transfer agreements (MTAs) that clearly define how the shared materials can be used, and document the qualifications of those receiving them.
- Stem cell scientists more carefully examine the background and reputation of individuals requesting stem cell lines from them and that they insist on an agreement to abide by a standard set of ethical guidelines.
- Scientists must be willing to pursue legal action against breaches of the MTAs.
The stem cell research community is seriously concerned about stem cell tourism. Have Master and Resnik hit upon a useful action that scientists should take? What problems might there be, and what issues need to be considered? Below are two comments on what Master and Resnik propose.
Comment by stem cell scientist Robin Lovell-Badge
Comment by transplant biologist Matthew D. Griffin
References
[1] Stem cell tourism and scientific responsibility by Zubin Master and David B. Resnik, EMBO reports advance online publication 29 July 2011; doi:10.1038/embor.2011.156.
Response to Robin Lovell-Badge and Matthew D. Griffin from Master and Resnik
Individuals who intentionally aim to deceive and behave in unethical ways may not necessarily be deterred by any means. In fact, there is some evidence in the responsible conduct of research literature suggesting that teaching ethics and developing ethical guidelines may only serve to provide fertile material for such disingenuous individuals to cheat the system. The basic critique by Robin Lovell-Badge is that MTAs won’t be very effective. This is a valid point. However, the purpose of our paper is two-fold:
First it aims to offer another means, in combination with other strategies, to effectively combat clinics from providing fraudulent treatments that could seriously weaken the field. Scientists have several moral responsibilities beyond performing and evaluating research: this includes educating and raising public awareness, and helping in the development of sound science policies. Both commentators have echoed the importance of these strategies and the roles scientists can play in helping to control the prevalence of fraudulent stem cell clinics.
Our second aim is to promote the idea that perhaps scientists may be able to play an important role given their expertise, unique position and their knowledge of stem cell research. As Matthew D. Griffin suggests, several scientific societies may collectively sponsor a Declaration that offers different ways to oppose stem cell tourism: education and raising awareness, defining unethical practices, and developing procedures to control the proliferation of unscrupulous practices, including the use of MTAs and placing some limits on scientific sharing. Scientists and scientific societies may be able to collectively advance several approaches to protect the integrity of stem cell research by abating the prevalence of fraudulent stem cell clinics.
Zubin Master and David B. Resnik
Related material
Post new comment