McGarity, T. and Wagner, W., Bending Science (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2007).Google Scholar

Law is part of a society's innovation policy – the complex of education, business incentives, legal, subsidy and other factors that help produce new ideas and guide them to become products and services.Google Scholar

It is a form of methodological naturalism. See Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 400 F. Supp. 707, 735–46 (M.D. Penn. 2005).Google Scholar

Merton, R. K., “Science and Technology in a Democratic Order,” Journal of Legal and Political Sociology 1 (1942): 115–26.Google Scholar

Society is the ultimate authority, even if in the end it delegates wide discretion to scientists to control most scientific matters. The same is true of medicine. How it is practiced is ultimately up to society. See Gonzalez v. Carhart, 127 S.Ct. 1610 (2007).Google Scholar

Wulf, William, past president of the National Academy of Engineering, has discussed these issues in terms of the “ecology of innovation.” That term includes “interrelated institutions, laws, regulations, and policies providing an innovation infrastructure that entails education, research, tax policy, and intellectual property protection, among others.” He argues that laws made for a different era need to be revised to fit a rapidly changing world to keep that ecology vibrant, citing the patent system, antitrust law, copyright, the drug approval process, and manufacturing systems. Wulf, W. A., Editorial, “Changes in Innovation Ecology,” Science 316, no. 5829 (2007): 1253. See also Farrell, D. and Kalil, T., “United States: A Strategy for Innovation,” Issues in Science and Technology XXVI, no. 3 (2010): 41–50; Chuan Poh, L., “Singapore: Betting on Biomedical Sciences,” Issues in Science and Technology XXVI, no. 3 (2010): 69–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

At later stages there are issues about how science is used in litigation. See Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993), and how it may be manipulated or bent in the policy process. McGarity, , Wagner, , supra note 1.Google Scholar

“Freedom to operate” is of great importance to investors who want to know whether the projects they are asked to support have the freedom under the law, especially intellectual property law, to achieve the goals they set.Google Scholar

Kuhn, T., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962). For a good summary of the Kuhnian debate and an alternative, see Dyson, F. J., The Sun, the Genome, and the Internet (New York; Oxford University Press, 1999): 13–21.Google Scholar

Scientists were keenly aware of possible ethical and societal implications when gene splicing became a possibility in 1974. Berg, P. et al., Letter, “Potential Biohazards of Recombinant DNA Molecules,” Science 185, no. 4148 (1974): 303 (scientist call for moratorium pending guidelines to prevent hazards from gene splicing). Nuclear physicists also were aware of its social implications, but felt compelled by the fear that Germany would get a bomb first to go forward. Bird, K. and Sherwin, M. J., American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer (New York: A.A. Knopf, 2005).Google Scholar

As noted, the policy frameworks and structures that are in play in resolving ESC conflicts are likely to reappear in other scientific controversies, such as those looming on the horizon with synthetic biology, genetic engineering, regenerative medicine, neuroscience, and nanotechnology. Each area raises distinctive problems. The value conflicts may not arise from the morality of means used, as is the case with embryos and other beginning of life issues, but with the personal or social effects of resulting knowledge, such as moral conceptions of parenting (genetic engineering) and responsibility (neuroscience). On synthetic biology generally, see Tucker, J. B. and Zilinskas, R. A., “The Promise and Perils of Synthetc Biology,” The New Atlantis 12, no. 12 (2006): 25–45; on nanotechnology, Wellcome Trust, Big Picture on Nanoscience 2 (2005) available at <http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/stellent/groups/corporatesite/@msh_publishing_group/documents/web_document/wtd015798.pdf> and the Symposium, “Nanotechnology: Ethical, Legal, and Social Issues,” in Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 34, no. 4 (2006): 655–747.Google Scholar

The symposium was held in Austin, Texas in May, 2009 with the generous support of the University of Texas Law School's George M. Fleming Center for Law and Innovation in Biomedicine and Heathcare.Google Scholar

Robertson, J. A., “Embryo Stem Cell Research: Ten Years of Controversy,” Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 38, no. 2 (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

The NAS report called them “Embryonic Stem Cell Review Organizations” or ESCROs. The “embryonic” part has since been dropped and they widely referred to as “SCROs.”Google Scholar

Goldstein, L., “Why Scientific Details Are Important When Novel Technologies Encounter Law, Politics, and Ethics,” Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 38, no. 2 (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Id.Google Scholar

Id.Google Scholar

Id.Google Scholar

David Magnus also shares this view. See his paper in this symposium. Interestingly, Geron has recently announced that they are now delaying their studies because of the need to reanalyze some of the submitted data for safety. Dimond, P. F., Special Report, Geron's Setback with Testing Its hESC Therapy in Humans Points to FDA's Continued Cautionary Stance, August 28, 2009, available at <http://www.genengnews.com/specialreports/sritem.aspx?oid=61364204> (last visited April 28, 2010). (last visited April 28, 2010).' href=https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=David+Magnus+also+shares+this+view.+See+his+paper+in+this+symposium.+Interestingly,+Geron+has+recently+announced+that+they+are+now+delaying+their+studies+because+of+the+need+to+reanalyze+some+of+the+submitted+data+for+safety.+Dimond,+P.+F.,+Special+Report,+Geron's+Setback+with+Testing+Its+hESC+Therapy+in+Humans+Points+to+FDA's+Continued+Cautionary+Stance,+August+28,+2009,+available+at++(last+visited+April+28,+2010).>Google Scholar

Doerflinger, R. M., “Old and New Ethics in the Stem Cell Debate,” Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 38, no. 2 (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Id.Google Scholar

Green, R. M., “Political Interventions in U.S. Embryo Research: An Ethical Assessment,” Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 38, no. 2 (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Id.Google Scholar

Id.Google Scholar

Id.Google Scholar

Id.Google Scholar

See Dresser, R., “Stem Cell Research as Innovation: Expanding the Ethical and Policy Conversation,” Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 38, no. 2 (2010) for a skeptical account of that likelihood, and thus a weakening of this claim for justice.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Green, , supra note 21.Google Scholar

Id.Google Scholar

Brock, D. W., “Creating Embryos for Use in Stem Cell Research,” Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 38, no. 2 (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Id.Google Scholar

Id.Google Scholar

Id.Google Scholar

Id.Google Scholar

Id.Google Scholar

Id.Google Scholar

Streiffer, R., “Chimeras, Moral Status, and Public Policy: Implications of the Abortion Debate for Public Policy on Human/Nonhuman Chimera Research,” Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 38, no. 2 (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sugarman, J., “Reflections on Governance Models for the Clinical Translation of Stem Cells,” Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 38, no. 2 (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Id.Google Scholar

Lo, B., “Resolving Ethical Issues in Stem Cell Clinical Trials: The Example of Parkinson's Disease,” Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 38, no. 2 (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Id.Google Scholar

Magnus, D., “Translating Stem Cell Research: Challenges at the Research Frontier,” Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 38, no. 2 (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Id.Google Scholar

Id.Google Scholar

Id.Google Scholar

Hyun, I., “Allowing Innovative Stem Cell-Based Therapies Outside of Clinical Trials: Ethical and Policy Challenges,” Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 38, no. 2 (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Id.Google Scholar

Taylor, P. L., “Overseeing Innovative Therapy Without Mistaking It for Research: A Function-Based Model Based on Old Truths, New Capacities, and Lessons from Stem Cells,” Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 38, no. 2 (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Id.Google Scholar

Id.Google Scholar

National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavorial Science Research, The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavorial Science Research (Office of Human Subjects Research, NIH, Bethesda, MD 1979).Google Scholar

Id.Google Scholar

Id.Google Scholar

Id.Google Scholar

Caulfield, T., “Stem Cell Research and Economic Promises,” Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 38, no. 2 (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Golden, J. M., “WARF's Stem Cell Patents and Tensions Between Public and Private Sector Approaches to Research,” Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 38, no. 2 (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Even though academic researchers were charged less than commericial users, the expense and paperwork were still a problem.Google Scholar

The petitioners' claim was that the existing ability to culture mice and other mammalian ESCs rendered deriving human ESCs obvious to anyone with access to embryos who would have tried. Wisconsin argued that there was invention beyond merely applying mouse techniques to human embryos. Holden, C., “Prominent Researchers Join the Attack on Stem Cell Patents,” Science 317, no. 5835 (2007): 187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Check, E., “Patenting the Obvious,” Nature 447, no. 7140 (2007): 16–17. See also “Federal Agency Rescinds Primate Stem Cell Patents,” Nature 446, no. 7137 (2007): 713. After some narrowing of their claims, the PTO eventually decided that the WARF patents were valid. See Holden, Constance, “Wisconsin Stem Cell Patents Upheld,” Science 319, no. 5870 (2008): 1602–1603.Google Scholar

Heller, M., “The Tragedy of the Anticommons,” Harvard Law Review, 111, no. 3 (1998) 621–688; Eisenberg, R. and Heller, M., “Can Patents Deter Innovation? The Anticommons in Biomedical Research,” Science, 280, no. 5364 (1998) 698–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Madey v. Duke Univ., 307 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (no researchers privilege to use patented equipment); Merck v. Integra, 545 U.S. 193 (2005) (no exemption for patent infringement for research).Google Scholar

Nuffield Council on Bioethics, The Ethics of Patenting DNA A Discussion Paper (2002), available at <http://www.nuffield-bioethics.org/fileLibrary/pdf/theethicsofpatentingdna.pdf> (last visited April 30, 2010).+(last+visited+April+30,+2010).>Google Scholar

Murray, F., “The Stem-Cell Market – Patents and the Pursuit of Scientific Progress,” N. Eng. J. Med. 356, no. 23 (2007): 2341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dresser, R., “Stem Cell Research as Innovation: Expanding the Ethical and Policy Conversation,” Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 38, no. 2 (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sometimes referred to as Amara's Law. See <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Amara> (last visited April 30, 2010). (last visited April 30, 2010).' href=https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Sometimes+referred+to+as+Amara's+Law.+See++(last+visited+April+30,+2010).>Google Scholar

It may also create the soil from which scientific fraud grows, as happened with Dr. Hwang and his false reports of successful generation of ESCs through nuclear transfer. It also led to Science being too quick to publish reports of somatic cell nuclear transfer based on that fraud.Google Scholar

See Callahan, D., What Price Better Health? (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sage, W. M., “Will Embryonic Stem Cells Change Health Policy?” Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 38, no. 2 (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Id.Google Scholar

Id.Google Scholar