Rhetoric, power and legitimacy: A critical analysis of the public policy disputes surrounding stem cell research in Australia (2005-6).

In December 2006, the Australian Parliament liberalized regulation governing stem cell research. This decision and preceding legislative review generated considerable public debate, which centred on objections to the deliberate creation and destruction of human embryos for research purposes. This paper draws on qualitative research conducted on the public debate surrounding this policy episode. The aim of this research was to examine how science and scientific knowledge is mobilized by participants in these debates to support their arguments. Data was collected from 109 newspaper opinion editorials as well as 23 in-depth interviews and examined using qualitative content and thematic analysis. Results of this analysis depict science as a rhetorical, moral and political resource that provides opportunities for participants to gain legitimacy, negotiate meaning and assert authority in the public domain. The mobilization of science in public discourse is discussed along with suggestions that are aimed at encouraging greater transparency and inclusiveness in public debates around contested science and emergent technologies

Marginalizing experience: A critical analysis of public discourse surrounding stem cell research in Australia (2005-6).

Over the past decade, stem cell science has generated considerable public and political debate. These debates tend to focus on issues concerning the protection of nascent human life and the need to generate medical and therapeutic treatments for the sick and vulnerable. The framing of the public debate around these issues not only dichotomises and oversimplifies the issues at stake, but tends to marginalise certain types of voices, such as the women who donate their eggs and/or embryos to stem cell research and the patients who might benefit from its potential clinical outcomes. This paper draws on empirical research conducted on a recent stem cell policy episode in Australia. From the qualitative examination of 109 newspaper opinion editorials and twenty-three in-depth interviews, it is argued that these voices are marginalised because they are based on discourses that have less epistemological status in public debate. Our results suggest that the personal experiences of women and patients are marginalised by the alliances that form between more powerful discourse communities that use science as a source of authority and legitimation. It is argued that members of these communities establish legitimacy and assert authority in public debate by discursively deploying science in claims that marginalise other epistemologies. Implications are discussed along with suggestions for a more enriched and inclusive public debate. Keywords Stem cellsCloningBioethicsPublic polic

The Medical Innovation Bill: Still more harm than good

The Medical Innovation Bill continues its journey through Parliament. On 23 January 2015, it was debated for the final time in the House of Lords and with one final amendment, the House moved to support the Bill, which then moved to the House of Commons on 26 January. It will be debated again on 27 February 2015. The Bill’s purpose is to encourage responsible innovation in medical treatment. Although this goal is laudable, it is argued that the Bill is unnecessary and has the potential to undermine the very cause it aims to advance. More useful for encouraging responsible innovation is the continued education of health-care professionals on how the law already supports practitioners who look to improve care through responsible innovation

Global bionetworks and challenges in regulating autologous adult stem cells

Autologous adult stem cells (ASCs) are increasingly being administered to patients with limited evidence from clinical trials that they are safe and effective. The marketing of autologous ASCs predominantly over the Internet by companies based in low-to-middle income countries, such as the Bahamas, Mexico, India and China, is well documented.(1, 2) However, even in countries such as the United States, Japan, and Australia, physicians are prescribing autologous ASCs to patients outside the context of clinical trials. These doctors often form part of loose collaborative networks of clinicians, businesses, patients and researchers operating both domestically and across national boundaries. The emergence of these networks not only puts patients who seek out these interventions at risk: it threatens to undermine the very basis of ‘good medical practice’.funded by the Ministry of Education, Singapore, and the Humanities and Social Sciences (HSS) Division of the Office of the Deputy President (Research and Technology) at the National University of Singapore (NU

Global bionetworks and challenges in regulating autologous adult stem cells

Autologous adult stem cells (ASCs) are increasingly being administered to patients with limited evidence from clinical trials that they are safe and effective. The marketing of autologous ASCs predominantly over the Internet by companies based in low-to-middle income countries, such as the Bahamas, Mexico, India and China, is well documented.(1, 2) However, even in countries such as the United States, Japan, and Australia, physicians are prescribing autologous ASCs to patients outside the context of clinical trials. These doctors often form part of loose collaborative networks of clinicians, businesses, patients and researchers operating both domestically and across national boundaries. The emergence of these networks not only puts patients who seek out these interventions at risk: it threatens to undermine the very basis of ‘good medical practice’.funded by the Ministry of Education, Singapore, and the Humanities and Social Sciences (HSS) Division of the Office of the Deputy President (Research and Technology) at the National University of Singapore (NU

Oversight for clinical uses of autologous adult stem cells: lessons from international regulations

Autologous adult stem cells (ASCs) are being administered by physicians for indications that have not been demonstrated as safe and effective in formal clinical trials. Examination of regulatory frameworks across five countries suggests that balancing the demands of research with clinical freedom has created structural weaknesses that are being exploited.funded by the Ministry of Education, Singapore, and the Humanities and Social Sciences (HSS) Division of the Office of the Deputy President (Research and Technology) at the National University of Singapore (NUS)

Oversight for clinical uses of autologous adult stem cells: lessons from international regulations

Autologous adult stem cells (ASCs) are being administered by physicians for indications that have not been demonstrated as safe and effective in formal clinical trials. Examination of regulatory frameworks across five countries suggests that balancing the demands of research with clinical freedom has created structural weaknesses that are being exploited.funded by the Ministry of Education, Singapore, and the Humanities and Social Sciences (HSS) Division of the Office of the Deputy President (Research and Technology) at the National University of Singapore (NUS)

Regulating the Stem Cell Industry: Needs and Responsibilities

Emerging biotechnologies pose public health challenges1 because of both the known and unforeseen risks they carry, the uncertain medical benefits they offer, the speed at which they have disseminated and their unproven mode of application.2 The development of therapies from advances in stem cell science reveals the need to pay critical attention to stem cell treatments. Stem cells have attracted scientific, clinical and public interest because they are self-renewing and have the capacity to develop into specific cell types, depending on the source of stem cells and their biological plasticity. The hope is that stem cells could be used either to replace damaged cells or to create an environment for cellular regeneration to treat several conditions, including osteoarthritis, diabetes, macular degeneration and Parkinson disease. Although promising in theory, so far very few stem cell therapies have proven to be safe and effective in clinical trials. Yet, despite the absence of evidence to support their use, there has been a global proliferation of clinics and associated businesses offering stem cell-based interventions to patients having serious medical conditions.3 These clinics operate mostly in the private health-care sector and typically market their interventions directly to patients over the Internet. The emergence of these clinics has not only created domestic markets in many highincome countries,3 but has also fomented stem cell tourism – the movement of people across international boundaries to access putative stem cell treatments. The global reach of this expanding industry exploits weaknesses and differences in national regulatory infrastructures4 and has revealed the need for an international approach to report and monitor the harms and benefits of these putative treatments

The Stem Cell “Sell”

In recent years, a growing number of clinics in Australia and overseas have begun to offer therapies that claim to restore health by using stem cells to replace or repair the patient's faulty or missing cells. For those who have been told that conventional medicine has nothing more to offer, a visit to a stem cell clinic may appear to be worth the time, effort and expense that this entails. What’s on Offer? Stem cell tourism is a phrase used to encompass travel – usually overseas – for a wide range of therapies involving stem cells. These therapies may involve the use of the patient’s own (autologous) stem cells from fat or their bone marrow, or donated stem cells from cord blood, embryos and foetal tissue. Therapy might be administered by having the patient inhale the cells, or by injecting the cells under the skin, into a vein or joint, directly into the fluid around the spinal cord or into the patient’s brain. Such therapies have been touted as effective treatments for many conditions and illnesses including arthritis, spinal cord injury, motor neurone disease, multiple sclerosis, cerebral palsy, neurodegenerative conditions and autism. Often the same treatment is offered for conditions with vastly different underlying pathology. Unlike other forms of medical tourism – such as travel for IVF, cosmetic surgery, joint replacement or dentistry, which are based on access to well-established conventional therapies that are available more quickly and at a more affordable price than in the patient’s home country – stem cell tourism provides patients with access to “treatments” that are yet to be proven. These treatments are not based upon rigorous scientific evidence, have not been clearly demonstrated to offer any benefit, and are not recognised or reimbursed by local health systems. The reality, sadly, is very different. Most people are unlikely to benefit, losing precious time, money, hope and trust in the course of pursuing this new form of medical tourism

Time-dependent restricted active space Configuration Interaction for the photoionization of many-electron atoms

We introduce the time-dependent restricted active space Configuration Interaction method to solve the time-dependent Schr\"odinger equation for many-electron atoms, and particularly apply it to the treatment of photoionization processes in atoms. The method is presented in a very general formulation and incorporates a wide range of commonly used approximation schemes, like the single-active electron approximation, time-dependent Configuration Interaction with single-excitations, or the time-dependent R-matrix method. We proof the applicability of the method by calculating the photoionization cross sections of Helium and Beryllium, as well as the X-ray--IR pump-probe ionization in BerylliumComment: 12 pages, 9 figure