Using a moot to develop students' understanding of human cloning and statutory interpretation.

This article reports and analyses the method and findings from a 3-year interdisciplinary project investigating how the medium of law can support understanding of socio-scientific issues. Law represents one of the most important means by which society decides and communicates its values. Activities mirroring legal processes therefore have significant potential to inform, inspire and involve school students in exploring the conceptual, social and ethical issues relating to developments in biomedical science. This article focusses on an intervention-style study in which UK-based 16- to 17-year-old students role played a Supreme Court moot, developed by modifying a domestic appeal case concerned with whether the contemporary legislation covered the creation of cloned human embryos. We draw attention to how the science of cloning has been slightly misunderstood by the courts and in science materials provided to UK school students. We argue that moot-centred engagement activities offer great potential for science communication among post-16 students and, despite the limitations of the judicial process for addressing complex socio-scientific issues, such role plays aid development of scientific and sociolegal understanding, as well as enhancing students' self-confidence and argumentation skills.

The value of bodily material: acquiring and allocating human gametes.

The UK is facing increasing demand for sperm and eggs for use in medical treatment and research. The disparity between supply and demand has led a number of UK bodies to recommend the adoption of a national donation system, at least with regard to gamete donation for treatment. This article argues that a national gamete donation system would have benefits beyond those articulated by bodies such as the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, the British Fertility Society, and the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, because a system of this type could facilitate the legal and ethical implementation of donor incentives. Three types of incentive are explored and it is argued that a national donation system could and should be utilised to implement a mirror exchange scheme or, preferably, an indirect mirror exchange scheme.

Organ trading, tourism, and trafficking within Europe.

This article argues for a regulatory and institutional response towards organ trading, tourism and trafficking that differs from extant approaches. European countries have hitherto adopted blanket prohibitions on organ trading (i.e. the buying or selling of human organs). This article advances the view that policy makers have thereby overreacted to legitimate public health concerns and the evils of organ trafficking (i.e. organ trading and tourism involving coercion or deception). It argues for a trial of a very tightly regulated system of organ trading that could eventually lead to a limited system of organ tourism (i.e. organ trading involving more than one jurisdiction).

Stem cell research ethics: consensus statement on emerging issues.

This article is a consensus statement by an international interdisciplinary group of academic experts and Canadian policy-makers on emerging ethical, legal and social issues in human embryonic stem cells (hESC) research in Canada. The process of researching consensus included consultations with key stakeholders in hESC research (regulations, stem cell researchers, and research ethics experts), preparation and distribution of background papers, and an international workshop held in Montreal in February 2007 to discuss the papers and debate recommendations. The recommendations provided in the consensus statement focus on issues of immediate relevance to Canadian policy-makers, including informed consent to hESC research, the use of fresh embryos in research, management of conflicts of interest, and the relevance of public opinion research to policy-making.

Some problems challenging the UK's Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority.

The UK's Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (hereafter the HFEA) is a regulatory body facing growing pressures and difficulties. Like any regulatory body, it faces the challenge of regulating with sufficient expertise, legitimacy, and contemporaneity. This challenge is, however, exacerbated by the fact that it seeks to regulate some of the most controversial and rapidly changing technologies of our time. Its decisions and jurisdictional assumptions face increasing challenge. In addition to the multitude of cases brought against it, the HFEA's actions recently led a House of Commons Select Committee to pointedly declare that "democracy is not served by unelected quangos (quasi-autonomous non-governmental organizations) taking decisions on behalf of Parliament". While endorsing the general need to review the legislation under which the HFEA operates (the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990), this paper will argue that the HFEA was correct in interpreting its jurisdiction to encompass the technique used to produce Dolly the sheep. This paper thereby defends the key feature of the approach of the House of Lords in the recent case of R (Bruno Quintavalle on behalf of the ProLife Alliance) v Secretary of State for Health [2003] UKHL 13.

Variations and voids: the regulation of human cloning around the world.

BACKGROUND: No two countries have adopted identical regulatory measures on cloning. Understanding the complexity of these regulatory variations is essential. It highlights the challenges associated with the regulation of a controversial and rapidly evolving area of science and sheds light on a regulatory framework that can accommodate this reality. METHODS: Using the most reliable information available, we have performed a survey of the regulatory position of thirty countries around the world regarding the creation and use of cloned embryos (see Table 1). We have relied on original and translated legislation, as well as published sources and personal communications. We have examined the regulation of both reproductive cloning (RC) and non-reproductive cloning (NRC). RESULTS: While most of the countries studied have enacted national legislation, the absence of legislation in seven of these countries should not be equated with the absence of regulation. Senator Morin was not correct in stating that the majority of recent legislation bans both RC and NRC. Recent regulatory moves are united only with regard to the banning of RC. While NRC is not permitted in seventeen of the countries examined, it could be permitted in up to thirteen countries. CONCLUSIONS: There is little consensus on the various approaches to cloning laws and policies, and the regulatory position in many countries remains uncertain.

Undue influence in the context of medical treatment.

It is argued that the application of the doctrine of undue influence to patient's decisions in the context of medical treatment is ripe for development. The doctrine is capable of providing much needed protection for vulnerable patients if developed along lines suggested by its use in other contexts. Unfortunately, the Court of Appeal has recently missed an opportunity to develop the law in this way and it may be some time before another suitable opportunity is presented to the courts.

The stem cell research environment: a patchwork of patchworks.

Few areas of recent research have received as much focus or generated as much excitement and debate as stem cell research. Hope for the therapeutic promise of this field has been matched by social concern associated largely with the sources of stem cells and their uses. This interplay between promise and controversy has contributed to the enormous variation that exists among the environments in which stem cell research is conducted throughout the world. This variation is layered upon intra-jurisdictional policies that are also often complex and in flux, resulting in what we term a 'patchwork of patchworks'. This patchwork of patchworks and its implications will become increasingly important as we enter this new era of stem cell research. The current progression towards translational and clinical research among international collaborators serves as a catalyst for identifying potential policy conflict and makes it imperative to address jurisdictional variability in stem cell research environments. The existing patchworks seen in contemporary stem cell research environments provide a valuable opportunity to consider how variations in regulations and policies across and within jurisdictions influence research efficiencies and directions. In one sense, the stem cell research context can be viewed as a living experiment occurring across the globe. The lessons to be gleaned from examining this field have great potential for broad-ranging general science policy application.