The global development of human embryonic stem cell (HESC) science and its therapeutic applications are dependent on the nature of its engagement at national and international levels with key cultural values and beliefs concerning the moral status of the early human embryo. This article argues that the political need to reconcile the promise of new health technologies with the cultural costs of scientific advance, dependent in this case on the use of the human embryo, has been met by the evolution of bioethics as a political community, transnational network, and bureaucratic device. Bioethics has become the political means for the creation of a global moral economy where the trading and exchange of values is normalized and legitimated. As a result of such trading, value compromises are produced capable of legitimizing the regulatory policies necessary for maintaining public trust in the new science.
Asad, T., ed. 1979. Anthropology and the analysis of ideology. Man14 (4): 607-27.
2.
Beauchamp, T.I., and J.F. Childress.1989. Principles of biomedical ethics, 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
3.
Bishop, J.P., and F. Jotterand.2006. Bioethics as biopolitics. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy31 (3): 205-12.
4.
Bosch, X.2005. Concerns over new EU ethics panel. The Scientist6 (1): 20051104-01. Available from http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/22822/ (accessed December 9, 2005).
Callahan, D.2006. Bioethics and ideology. Hastings Center Report36 (1): 3.
7.
China Ministry of Science of Technology and Ministry of Health.2004. Guidelines for Research on Human Embryonic Stem Cells. January. Available from http://www.chinaphs.org/bioethics/regulations_&_laws.htm#_Toc113106142 (accessed November 27, 2005).
8.
Clouser, K.D.1993. Bioethics and philosophy. Hastings Center Report23 (6): S10-S11.
9.
Clouser, K.D., and B. Gert.1990. A critique of principlism. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy15 (2): 219-36.
10.
Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences.2002. International ethical guidelines for biomedical research involving human subjects. Available from http://www.cioms.ch/frame_guidelines_nov_2002.htm (accessed October 5, 2005).
11.
Dubose, E.R., R.P. Hamel, and L.J. O'Connell.1994. A matter of principles. Ferment in US bioethics. Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International.
12.
European Commission.2004. Survey on opinions from national ethics committees or similar bodies, public debate and national legislation in relation to human embryonic stem cell research and use. Volume I in EU Member States. Brussels: European Commission.
13.
European Commission.2005. Social values, science and technology. Special Eurobarometer. Available from http://europa.eu.int/comm/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_225_report_en.pdf (accessed September 8, 2005).
14.
European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies.2001. General report of the activities of the European Group on Ethics, 1998—2000. Brussels: European Commission Available from http://europa.eu.int/comm/european_group_ethics/publications_en.htm (accessed December 2, 2005).
15.
European Parliament.1997. Resolution on the cloning of human beings. Official Journal C 115, April 14: 92.
16.
Evans, J.H.2000. A sociological account of the growth of principlism. Hastings Center Report30 (5): 31-38.
17.
——. 2002. Playing God. Human genetic engineering and the rationalisation of public bioethical debate. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
18.
Fink, S.2005. Live and let...? Measuring and explaining the strictness of embryo research laws in 21 countries. Third European Consortium for Political Research Conference. Panel 3—7: The Regulation of the Life Sciences. Budapest. September 8-10.
19.
Fox, R.1999. Is medical education asking too much of bioethics? Daedelus128 (4):1-25.
20.
Galloux, J., A. Mortensen, S. de Cheveigne, A. Allansdottir, A. Chatjouli, and G. Sakellaris.2002. The institutions of bioethics. In Biotechnology: The making of a global controversy, edited by M.W. Bauer and G. Gaskell, 129—48. London: Science Museum .
21.
Gough, K.1968. New proposals for anthropologists. Current Anthropology9 (5): 403-7.
22.
Haas, P.M.2001. Policy knowledge: Epistemic communities. In International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, edited by N. J. Smelser and P. B. Baltes, 11578—86. Oxford: Pergamon.
23.
Hedgecoe, A.2004. Critical bioethics: Beyond the social science critique of applied ethics. Bioethics18 (2): 120-43.
24.
Hoffman, J.P., and S.M. Johnson.2005. Attitudes toward abortion among religious traditions in the United States: change or continuity? Sociology of Religion. Available from http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0SOR/is_2_66/ai_n14817990 (accessed November 21, 2005).
25.
Human Genome Organisation.1996. Statement on the principled conduct of genetics research. Available from http://www.gene.ucl.ac.uk/hugo/conduct.htm (accessed November 27, 2005).
26.
——. 2004. Statement on stem cells. Available from http://www.hugo-international.org/PDFs/Statement%20on%20Stem%20Cells%20%202004.pdf (accessed December 3, 2005).
27.
Hunter, J.D.1994. Before the shooting begins: Searching for democracy in America's culture war. New York: The Free Press.
28.
Indian Council of Medical Research.2004. Draft guidelines for stem cell research regulation in India. Available from http://www.icmr.nic.in/bioethics/guidelines_stemcell.pdf (accessed September 27, 2005).
29.
International Society of Bioethics, Scientific Committee. (2000). Bioethics Declaration of Gijon. Available from http://www.sibi.org/ingles/declaracion.htm (accessed October 23, 2005).
30.
Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities Bioethics Advisory Committee.2001. The use of embryonic stem cells for therapeutic research. Available from http://www.academy.ac.il/bioethics/english/main-e.html (accessed December 5, 2005 ).
31.
Jasanoff, S.2005. Designs on nature: Science and democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
32.
Jonsen, A.1998. The birth of bioethics. New York: Oxford University Press.
33.
Jonsen, A.R.1994. Foreword. In A matter of principles? Ferment in US bioethics, edited by E. R. DuBose, R. P. Hamel, and L. J. O'Connell, 1. Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International.
34.
Kelly, S.2003. Public bioethics and publics: Consensus, boundaries and participation in biomedical science policy. Science, Technology, & Human Values28 (3): 339-64.
35.
Knoppers, B.M., and R. Chadwick.1994. The Human Genome Project: Under an international ethical microscope. Science, September 30, 265: 2035-6.
36.
—— 2005. Human genetic research: emerging trends in ethics. Nature Reviews Genetics6 (1): 75—9.
37.
Koch, T.2006. Bioethics as ideology: Conditional and unconditional values . Journal of Medicine and Philosophy31 (3): 251-67.
38.
Laclau, E., and C. Mouffe.1985. Hegemony and socialist strategy: Toward a radical democratic politics. London: Verso.
39.
Lopez, J.2004. How sociology can save bioethics ... maybe. Sociology of Health and Illness25 (7): 875-96.
40.
McConkey, D.2001. Whither Hunter's culture war? Shifts in evangelical morality. 1988—1998. Sociology of Religion62 (2): 149-74.
41.
Minkenberg, M.2002. Religion and public policy. Institutional, cultural and political impact on the shaping of abortion policies in Western democracies . Comparative Political Studies35 (2): 221-47.
42.
Mulkay, M.1997. The embryo research debate: Science and politics of reproduction . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
43.
National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research.1978. The Belmont Report. Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. Washington DC: GPO.
44.
Pontifical Academy for Life. 2000.Declaration on the production and scientific and therapeutic use of the human embryonic stem cells. August 25. Rome: The Vatican. Available from http://www.cin.org/docs/stem-cell-research.html (accessed September 9, 2005).
45.
Reich, W.T.1995. The word `bioethics'. The struggle over its earliest meanings . Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 5(1): 19-34.
46.
Rosenberg, C.E.1999. Meanings, policies and medicine: On the bioethical enterprise and history. Daedelus128 (4): 27-46.
47.
Rothstein, H., A. Irwin, S. Yearley, and E. McCarthy.1999. Regulatory science, Europeanization and the control of agrochemicals. Science, Technology, & Human Values24 (2): 241-64.
48.
Rothman, D.1991. Strangers at the bedside: A history of how law and bioethics transformed medical decision making. London: Basic Books.
49.
Salter, B.2006. Cultural politics and human embryonic stem cell science . In New technologies in health care, edited by A. Webster and S. Wyatt, 211-23. Basingstoke , UK: Palgrave.
50.
Salter, B., and M. Jones.2002. Human genetic technologies, European governance and the politics of bioethics. Nature ReviewsGenetics3 (10): 808-14.
51.
——. 2005. Biobanks and bioethics: The politics of legitimation. Journal of European Public Policy12 (4): 710-32.
52.
Singapore Bioethics Advisory Committee.2002 . Ethical, legal and social issues in human stem cell research, reproductive and therapeutic cloning. Available from http://www.bioethicssingapore.org/resources/body_reports1.html (accessed September 28, 2005).
53.
Street, B.1993. Culture is a verb: Anthropological aspects of language and cultural process. In Language and culture, edited by D. Graddol, L. Thompson, M. Byram, and M. Clevedon.Avon: British Association for Applied Linguistics in association with Multilingual Matters.
54.
United Nations.2002. Abortion policies: A global review. Available from http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/abortion/ (accessed September 8, 2005).
55.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.1997. Universal declaration on the human genome and human rights. Adopted by the General Conference of UNESCO at its 29th Session. November 11. Available from http://www.unesco.org/ibc
56.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, International Bioethics Committee.2001. The use of embryonic stem cells in therapeutic research. Available from http://portal.unesco.org/shs/en/ev.phpURL_ID=2144&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html (accessed December 9, 2005 ).
57.
United States President's Council on Bioethics.2002. Human cloning and human dignity: an ethical inquiry. Available from http://www.bioethics.gov/ (accessed November 13, 2005).
58.
——. 2004. Monitoring stem cell research. Available from http://www.bioethics.gov/ (accessed September 22, 2005).
59.
——. 2005. Alternative sources of human pluripotent stem cells. Available from http://www.bioethics.gov/ (accessed January 27, 2006).
60.
Veatch, R.1991. The patient-physician relation. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
61.
Walters, L.2004a. Human embryonic stem cell research: An intercultural perspective. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal14 (1): 3-38.
62.
——. 2004b. The United Nations and human cloning: A debate on hold . Hastings Center Report34 (1): 5-6.
63.
Wolpe, P.R. and G McGee.2001. “Expert bioethics” as professional discourse: The case of stem cells. In The human embryonic stem cell debate: Science, ethics and public policy, edited by S. Holland, K. Lebacqz, and L. Zoloth, 185—96. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press:
64.
World Health Organization.1997. Proposed international guidelines on ethical issues in medical genetics and genetic services. Available from http://www.who.int/ncd/hgn/hgnethic.htm (accessed September 17, 2005).
65.
——. 2005. Ethics and Health Department. Available from http://www.who.int/ethics/en/ [accessed January 14, 2006).
66.
World Medical Association.2002. Declaration on ethical considerations regarding health databases. Available from http://www.wma.net/e/policy/SMACDATABASESOCT2002.htm [accessed January 9, 2006).
67.
Wright, S.1998. The politicisation of culture. Anthropology Today14 (1): 7—15.
68.
Yesley, M.2005. What's in a name? Bioethics—and human rights—at UNESCO. Hastings Center Report35 (2): 8.
