A Case Study of Experimental Stem Cell Therapy and the Risks of Over-Regulation (A Hollander) Stem Cell Technology: From Research Regulation to Clinical Applications (D Chalmers) Legal Imperialism in the Regulation of Stem Cell Research and Therapy: The Problem of Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (D Cutas & C Munthe) Governing Cloning: United Nations' Debates and the Institutional Context of Standards (W C Ho) Sociological Reflections on Ethics, Embryonic Stem Cells and Translational Research (C Williams & S Wainwright) Rhetoric, Power and Legitimacy in Public Discourse: A Critical Analysis of the Public Debate Surrounding the Review of Embryo Research and Cloning Legislation in Australia in 2005 (T Lysaght & I Kerridge) New Developments in Stem Cell Science: iPS Cells and the Challenge to Consent (J Mackenney & B Capps) 'Reasonable Suffering': The Application of Stem Cell Technologies to Non-Human Animals (J Yeates) Ontological Status of Human-Non-Human Embryonic Chimeras (J Kuře) Religion, Civic Virtue and the Stem Cell Debate (C L Teoh) Rejuvenated Federalism: State-Based Stem Cell Research Policy (G Lomax) Hybrid Embryos - Ethics, Law and Rhetoric in the United Kingdom's Stem Cell Policy (N Hammond-Browning & S Holm) Stem Cell Research and Its Clinical Application in China: Interactions Between Science, Ethics and Society (R-Z Qiu & X-M Zhai) Neither a 'Person' Not a 'Thing': The Controversy Concerning the Moral and Legal Status of Human Embryos in Japan (S Kodama & A Akabayashi) A Tale of Two Countries: Czech and Slovak Stem Cell Biopolicies (P Sukora).
Abstract The tobacco industry’s involvement in the electronic cigarette research that informs public health policy is controversial. On the one hand, some are concerned that their involvement presents conflicts of interest that bias research outputs and invalidate the policies that use them. On the other hand, some have argued that the tobacco industry may support valid research and contribute to the goals of public health, for instance, if the interests of the e‐cigarette industry could be part of a tobacco smoking cessation policy. We approach this debate from the ethical perspective of the public interest and the public good, considering how legitimate researchers can square their expert opinion with validating tobacco industry‐funded research, given the perfidy of the tobacco industry and paucity of robust, conclusive evidence on the public health impacts of liberalizing e‐cigarette use.
A prevailing issue in clinical research is the duty clinicians have to treat or prevent the progression of disease during a study that they are conducting. While all clinical researchers have a duty of care for the patients who participate in clinical research, intervening at the onset or progression of disease may skew results and have a negative impact on the scientific validity of a study. Extreme examples of failures to intervene can be found in the Tuskegee syphilis study and in an attempt to determine if cervical smears were an accurate predictor of cancer, which was uncovered by the Cartwright Inquiry. However, the issue arises in all research where delay in intervention can cause harm. A current study in Singapore is investigating the significance of an ‘ultra-high risk’ state that may constitute the prodromal phase of psychosis. This project called ‘The Longitudinal Youth at Risk Study’ is potentially contentious because it is recruiting young people who are identified as being ‘at risk’ of developing psychosis. In this paper, the decision to offer treatment to all participants as well as a fast track for those who are assessed to have developed serious mental illness into treatment is discussed. It is argued that this approach is ethically justified because of the duty of care that is owed to research participants, and suggests that the principle of equipoise may be used to guide intervention decisions in other clinical research protocols.