http://www.sussex.ac.uk/staff/newsandevents/?id=27655
What is there between bona fide and rogue stem cell therapy? That was the central question of an international conference at the University of Sussex last week.
Stem cell scientists, clinicians and social scientists from around the world gathered to discuss and debate current practices around stem cell research and therapy at the conference on 11 and 12 November, organised by the Centre for Bionetworking in the Department of Anthropology.
Stem cell science is widely viewed as highly promising in its potential to offer cures for chronic and terminal diseases.
But, for now, there is great controversy among scientists about the extent to which stem cell therapies are based on ‘scientific proof’.
In this context, the rise of what is often referred to as ‘stem cell tourism’, in which patients travel abroad to receive stem cell therapies that are prohibited in their own countries, has become a question that is intensely debated by scientists, regulators and clinicians around the world.
Over the two days of the ESRC- and ERC-funded conference, delegates presented a range of interdisciplinary papers addressing these questions through five thematic panels, on subjects ranging from ‘biomedical platforms’ and ‘wellness and stem cell tourism’ to the role of religion in the regulation of stem cell research in different countries.
The second day of the conference featured two keynote lectures.
Insoo Hyun, Professor of Bioethics and Philosophy at Case Western Reserve University and a member of the International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR), delivered a powerful lecture on the bioethical complexities of stem cell tourism.
In the second keynote lecture, Professor Margaret Sleeboom-Faulkner, Director of the Centre for Bionetworking at Sussex, drew upon her empirical research on one of China’s leading biotech firms, Beike Biotech, in exploring how different cultural and economic contexts shape public debate on the ethics of commercial stem cell therapy.
The discussions culminated in a final policy panel on ‘Standard setting, regulation and the authorisation of stem cell therapy provisions’, in which world-renowned stem cell scientists and clinicians from Europe and Asia debated the ideal means of bringing stem cell therapies to the clinic.
A central point of contention between speakers focused on the commercialisation of stem cell research and medical treatment more generally.
Professor Paolo Bianco, a global expert on mesenchymal stem cells and a fierce critic of commercial stem cell therapy, argued: “Commercialisation has a deteriorating influence on public trust in science.”
In response, Dr Alok Sharma, a neurosurgeon and provider of stem cell therapy in India, suggested instead: “Commerce also drives science - all the advances that have been made have been driven by the pharmaceutical industry. There need to be incentives.”
Professor Sleeboom-Faulkner summarised the issues covered by the conference by commenting: “Knowledge in the life sciences is increasingly influenced by the international contexts in which it is created: it is produced through socio-economic and policy institutions, including regulation, national science policies and education.”
What is there between bona fide and rogue stem cell therapy? That was the central question of an international conference at the University of Sussex last week.
Stem cell scientists, clinicians and social scientists from around the world gathered to discuss and debate current practices around stem cell research and therapy at the conference on 11 and 12 November, organised by the Centre for Bionetworking in the Department of Anthropology.
Stem cell science is widely viewed as highly promising in its potential to offer cures for chronic and terminal diseases.
But, for now, there is great controversy among scientists about the extent to which stem cell therapies are based on ‘scientific proof’.
In this context, the rise of what is often referred to as ‘stem cell tourism’, in which patients travel abroad to receive stem cell therapies that are prohibited in their own countries, has become a question that is intensely debated by scientists, regulators and clinicians around the world.
Over the two days of the ESRC- and ERC-funded conference, delegates presented a range of interdisciplinary papers addressing these questions through five thematic panels, on subjects ranging from ‘biomedical platforms’ and ‘wellness and stem cell tourism’ to the role of religion in the regulation of stem cell research in different countries.
The second day of the conference featured two keynote lectures.
Insoo Hyun, Professor of Bioethics and Philosophy at Case Western Reserve University and a member of the International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR), delivered a powerful lecture on the bioethical complexities of stem cell tourism.
In the second keynote lecture, Professor Margaret Sleeboom-Faulkner, Director of the Centre for Bionetworking at Sussex, drew upon her empirical research on one of China’s leading biotech firms, Beike Biotech, in exploring how different cultural and economic contexts shape public debate on the ethics of commercial stem cell therapy.
The discussions culminated in a final policy panel on ‘Standard setting, regulation and the authorisation of stem cell therapy provisions’, in which world-renowned stem cell scientists and clinicians from Europe and Asia debated the ideal means of bringing stem cell therapies to the clinic.
A central point of contention between speakers focused on the commercialisation of stem cell research and medical treatment more generally.
Professor Paolo Bianco, a global expert on mesenchymal stem cells and a fierce critic of commercial stem cell therapy, argued: “Commercialisation has a deteriorating influence on public trust in science.”
In response, Dr Alok Sharma, a neurosurgeon and provider of stem cell therapy in India, suggested instead: “Commerce also drives science - all the advances that have been made have been driven by the pharmaceutical industry. There need to be incentives.”
Professor Sleeboom-Faulkner summarised the issues covered by the conference by commenting: “Knowledge in the life sciences is increasingly influenced by the international contexts in which it is created: it is produced through socio-economic and policy institutions, including regulation, national science policies and education.”