Search

Australia's strong historical foundation in stem cell science was boosted in 2002 by the formation of a virtual government-supported institute now called the Australian Stem Cell Centre. However, the inevitable "brain drain" and government and community expectations of quick commercial gains and rapid cures necessitate careful reconsideration of the identity and future of stem cell science in Australia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Embryonic stem cells are currently derived from the inner cell mass of human blastocysts, generated from spare embryos donated for research. To overcome ethical concerns raised by destruction of the embryo, two groups of workers have attempted to derive these cells from isolated blastomeres of 8- to 10-cell stage embryos using the embryo biopsy method akin to that used in preimplantation diagnosis. This paper briefly discusses these two techniques in relation to the routine derivation of stem cells from blastocysts. Some embryological aspects of using the inner cell mass of blastocysts in preference to early embryonic cells are presented. The paper also considers some pitfalls in therapeutic cloning, especially in non-human primates, since legislation to allow this procedure for stem cell research is currently being passed in Australia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article, the 2002 Australian debate regarding embryonic stem cells is examined. This shows the importance of an analysis of the media to understanding how disability is constructed in discourses of nationhood and biotechnology. Media representation of disability—for instance, signifying disability as catastrophe—is seen as crucial in securing access to a variety of biotechnologies, such as embryonic stem cells. Analysis of such media moments shows a structure of privileged and excluded voices in debates regarding disability and biotechnology. The diversity of voices in the Australian community regarding disability is not represented in a range of media, nor are people with disability quoted as experts on disability. A recognition of the media's construction of disability must be matched by a commitment to disability as part of a truly civil society. It is only in this way that we will have biotechnologies, and diverse cultural and media representations that meet the requirements of the international disability rights movement motto of 'nothing about us without us', recently emphasized in the Disabled Peoples' International Europe's 2000 statement on biotechnology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A conscience vote of individual parliamentarians in the Australian government last month regarding amendments to current legislation regulating human embryonic stem cell research yielded a surprising outcome. Despite opposition by the Australian Prime Minister, the Senate and House of Representatives voted to adopt the recommendations of the Lockhart Review and approve human somatic cell nuclear transfer, thus providing a consistent national policy for all researchers in Australia. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Focuses on the implementation of the policy for embryonic stem (ES) cells research in Australia. Development of therapies for blood and tissue diseases; Transformation of ES cells into tissue types; Enhancement of treatments for leukemia.

The potential therapeutic applications of stem cells are unlimited. However, the ongoing political and social debate surrounding the intellectual property and patenting considerations of stem cell research has led to the implementation of strict legislative regulations. In Australia the patent landscape surrounding stem cells has evolved considerably over the past 20 years. The Australian Patents Act 1990 includes a specific exclusion to the patentability of human beings and of biological processes for their generation. However, this exclusion has received no judicial consideration to date, and so its scope and potential impact on stem cell patents is unclear., (Copyright © 2015 Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press; all rights reserved.)

Mouse models play a key role in the understanding gene function, human development and disease. In 2007, the Australian Government provided funding to establish the Monash University embryonic stem cell-to-mouse (ES2M) facility. This was part of the broader Australian Phenomics Network, a national infrastructure initiative aimed at maximising access to global resources for understanding gene function in the mouse. The remit of the ES2M facility is to provide subsidised access for Australian biomedical researchers to the ES cell resources available from the International Knockout Mouse Consortium (IKMC). The stated aim of the IKMC is to generate a genetically modified mouse ES cell line for all of the ~23,000 genes in the mouse genome. The principal function of the Monash University ES2M service is to import genetically modified ES cells into Australia and to convert them into live mice with the potential to study human disease. Through advantages of economy of scale and established relationships with ES cell repositories worldwide, we have created over 110 germline mouse strains sourced from all of the major ES providers worldwide. We comment on our experience in generating these mouse lines; providing a snapshot of a "clients" perspective of using the IKMC resource and one which we hope will serve as a guide to other institutions or organisations contemplating establishing a similar centralised service.

The article reports that Sydney IVF, the in vitro fertilization clinic in Australia, has received a licence to conduct therapeutic cloning. It is also known as somatic-cell nuclear transfer wherein the DNA from a patient's cell is introduced into an unfertilized egg. As soon as the egg develops into an embryo, scientists extract stem cell and create an embryonic stem-cell line that is a genetic match of the patient. The licence provides for use of 7,200 human eggs over the next three years.

The article reports that a bill was passed by the Australian government approving of issue of licenses to undertake therapeutic cloning research. The bills passed by the Australia's House of Representatives favor legalization of human embryo creation by somatic cell nuclear transfer and the embryonic stem cell harvesting for research purposes. The bill regulates mandatory licenses for therapeutic cloning and imposes severe penalties on companies undertaking research without licenses.

The article reports that the Australian government has approved the practice of therapeutic cloning, otherwise known as somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). Scientists will now be allowed to experiment with human embryonic stem cells. The new law however requires destruction of SCNT-created embryos within 14 days. Australian scientists are elated at the development, which may enable them to generate genetically tailored populations of stem cells to study diseases.

The article reports that the ban on the cloning of human embryonic cells in Australia may be lifted if a bill to repeal it gets passed with a majority in the House. Liberal Party member Mal Washer, who is behind the bill, predicts majority for the bill. However, Steve Fielding, the Family First Party leader, who supports the ban, says it's too early to predict the bill's fate. The bill, if approved, would allow human somatic cell nuclear transfer. But it would prohibit the making of sperm-fertilized embryos for research and the implantation of a cloned embryo into a woman's uterus.

Reports on a technology to convert embryonic stem cells into blood cells that was developed by researchers Andrew Elefanty and Ed Stanley of the Australian Stem Cell Centre in 2005. Scarcity of blood used for transfusion; Reason behind the use of a combination of growth factors; Views of Stephen Livesey, chief scientific officer at the Australian Stem Cell Centre, on the potentiality of the technique.

Focuses on efforts of federal, state, and territory leaders in Australia to resolve the debate over the use of human embryonic stem cells. Agreement of the leaders to allow regulated research; Context of the proposed legislation; Prohibition of all forms of cloning.

Reports the reaction of biologists on the plan of the government of banning of human embryonic stem-cell lines in Australia. Use of discarded embryos in stem-cell research; Postponement of the implementation of the agreement to establish rules; Proposals of minister for ageing Kevin Andrews on stem-cell research and cloning policy.

We report on a study undertaken with an Australian in vitro fertilisation (IVF) clinic to understand IVF patients' and reproductive donors' perceptions of oocyte (egg) donation for stem cell research. Such perspectives are particularly valuable because IVF patients form a major recruitment group for oocyte donation for research, and because patients and donors have direct experience of the medical procedures involved. Similar studies of oocyte donation have been carried out elsewhere in the world, but to date very little social science research has been published that reports on donation for research, as distinct from donation for reproduction. Our respondents expressed a distinct unwillingness to donate viable oocytes for stem cell research. In our analysis we consider a number of factors that explain this unwillingness. These include the labour of oocyte production, the inscrutability of oocytes (the lack of a test to identify degrees of fertility) and the extent to which the oocytes' fertility sets the parameters for all downstream reproductive possibilities. We draw on the science studies literature on affordances to make sense of the social intractability of oocytes, and compare them with the respondents' much greater willingness to donate frozen embryos for human embryonic stem cells research., (© 2011 The Authors. Sociology of Health & Illness © 2011 Foundation for the Sociology of Health & Illness/Blackwell Publishing Ltd.)

The term 'stem cell' most commonly refers to embryonic stem cells, particularly in the lay media; however, it also describes other cell types. A stem cell represents a cell of multi-lineage potential with the ability for self-renewal. It is now clear that the plasticity and immortality of a given stem cell will depend on what type of stem cell it is, whether an embryonic stem cell, a fetal-placental stem cell or an adult stem cell. Stem cells offer great promise as cell-based therapies for the future. With evolving technology, much of the socio-political debate regarding stem cells can now be avoided., (© 2011 The Authors. Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health © 2011 Paediatrics and Child Health Division (Royal Australasian College of Physicians).)

Legislation in individual member states of the European Union on human embryonic stem cell (hESC) research is as divergent as the different cultural, ethical, and religious views on the issue. On the occasion of the public launch of the European Human Embryonic Stem Cell Registry (hESCreg: www.hescreg.eu), a two-day symposium was held on 18 and 19 January 2008 in Berlin to offer participants an overview of state-of-the-art hESC research and legislation throughout Europe and in selected regions of the world. Thirty leading scientists from Europe as well as from the United States, Japan, and Australia reported on a range of aspects related to research on hESC and reviewed the key elements of the newly established hESCreg database of hESC lines. In this article we summarize and complete the information on the current status of international hESC regulation.

Bioethical issues pose challenges for pluralist, democratic societies due to the need to arbitrate between incompatible views over fundamental beliefs. The legitimacy of public policy is increasingly seen to depend on taking public consultation seriously, and subsequently regulating contested activities such as therapeutic cloning and hESC research. In December 2006, the Australian Federal Parliament lifted the ban on therapeutic cloning, following recommendations of the Legislation Review Committee (Lockhart Committee), which recently reported on its approach and methods in this journal. This column analyses recent accounts of democratic deliberative processes, authoritative regulation and the committee's own account. Authoritative regulation turns out to be largely an appeasement strategy, directed towards the losers of the contest, in this case the opponents of therapeutic cloning and hESC research. This is because regulation fails to minimise harm as perceived by the losers, and fails to meaningfully limit what it is the winners wish to do. Moreover, regulation adds an unnecessary layer of red tape to the work of the winners. Committees of inquiry in bioethical matters should be more open about their processes and their normative recommendations, at the risk of eroding trust in parts of their processes.

Public policy debates surrounding stem cell research are becoming increasingly more complex as governance considerations move beyond the moral status of human embryos. This complexity is evident in the public discourses surrounding these debates globally. This article draws on the results of an analysis conducted on the media coverage of a recent stem cell policy episode in the United States to demonstrate the complexity of public discourses surrounding stem cell research and to reflect upon similar debates in Australia. Observations made from the public discourses in California are reframed within the Australian context to discuss ways in which future public policy debates surrounding stem cell research may be enriched.

In 2005 a Legislation Review Committee, known as the Lockhart Review, undertook a review of the Commonwealth legislation regulating human embryo research. The report that emanated from the review was released in December 2005. If the report recommendations are implemented by the Federal Government, Australian scientists will be permitted to create human embryo entities currently known as "human embryo clones" by the process known as somatic cell nuclear transfer to develop stem cell lines for research purposes. Many argue that stem cells have the potential to be developed into valuable medical therapies that could assist with, or cure, serious diseases such as Type 1 diabetes and Parkinson's disease. This article analyses the evidence presented to the Lockhart Review and the report recommendations. It assesses where the Lockhart recommendations would place Australia in terms of worldwide embryo research. It is argued that the Federal Government should fully embrace the recommendations so that Australia can progress stem cell research to its fullest potential.