Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T07:23:44.688Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Trends in the geographic distribution of human embryonic stem-cell research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 May 2016

Aaron Levine
Aaron Levine*
Affiliation:
Doctoral Program in Science, Technology, and Environmental Policy, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544, USA [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Human embryonic stem-cell (hESC) research offers substantial potential benefits but has generated politically influential controversies and, in the United States, funding restrictions. Some observers fear the United States has been falling behind nations more permissive in this field, but policy debate has remained largely anecdotal. This study reports citation data indicating that the share of hESC research publications credited to the United States in the six years following the introduction of key technologies was significantly less than in five less contentious biomedical-research areas. The United States share of hESC publications fell sharply in 2003 and remained near this reduced level in 2004. Putative explanations are reviewed and several implications discussed.

Type
Research Article
Information
Politics and the Life Sciences , Volume 23 , Issue 2 , September 2004 , pp. 40 - 45
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Politics and the Life Sciences 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Thomson, J. A. et al., “Embryonic stem cell lines derived from human blastocysts.” Science, 1998, 282(5391): 1145–1147.Google Scholar
2.Schuldiner, M., Yanuka, O., Itskovitz-Eldor, J., Melton, D. A., and Benvenisty, N., “Effects of eight growth factors on the differentiation of cells derived from human embryonic stem cells.” Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 2000, 97(21): 11307–11312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Richards, M., Fong, C. Y., Chan, W. K., Wong, P. C., and Bongso, A., “Human feeders support prolonged undifferentiated growth of human inner cell masses and embryonic stem cells.” Nat Biotechnol, 2002, 20(9): 933–936.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Zwaka, T. P. and Thomson, J. A., “Homologous recombination in human embryonic stem cells.” Nat Biotechnol, 2003, 21(3): 319–321.Google Scholar
5.Hwang, W. S. et al., “Evidence of a pluripotent human embryonic stem cell line derived from a cloned blastocyst.” Science, 2004, 303(5664): 1669–1674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Hwang, W. S. et al., “Patient-specific embryonic stem cells derived from human SCNT blastocysts.” Science, 2005, 308(5729): 1777–1783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.National Bioethics Advisory Commission, Ethical Issues in Human Stem Cell Research: Volume I: Reports and Recommendations (Rockville, MD, 1999).Google Scholar
8.President's Council on Bioethics, Human Cloning and Human Dignity: An Ethical Inquiry (Washington, D.C., 2002).Google Scholar
9.Committee on the Biological and Biomedical Applications of Stem Cell Research, Stem Cells and the Future of Regenerative Medicine (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 2002).Google Scholar
10.Committee on Guidelines for Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research, Guidelines for Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research (Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2005).Google Scholar
11.Dyer, G., “Scientist cheered by UK stance on stem cells.” Financial Times, August 30, 2002, p8.Google Scholar
12.Gershon, D., “Complex political, ethical and legal issues surround research on human embryonic stem cells.” Nature, 2003, 422(6934): 928–929.Google Scholar
13.Garfield, E., “Citation indexes for science — New dimension in documentation through association of ideas.” Science, 1955, 122(3159): 108–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Narin, F. and Hamilton, K. S., “Bibliometric performance measures.” Scientometrics, 1996, 36(3): 293–310.Google Scholar
15.Price, D. J., “Networks of scientific papers.” Science, 1965, 149:510–515.Google Scholar
16.Borgman, C. L. and Furner, J., “Scholarly communication and bibliometrics,” in Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, Cronin, B., ed., 2002, 36:3–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.Seglen, P. O., “The skewness of science.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 1992, 43(9): 628–638.3.0.CO;2-0>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18.Schena, M., Shalon, D., Davis, R. W., and Brown, P. O., “Quantitative monitoring of gene expression patterns with a complementary DNA microarray.” Science, 1995, 270(5235): 467–470.Google Scholar
19.Saiki, R. K. et al., “Primer-directed enzymatic amplification of DNA with a thermostable DNA polymerase.” Science, 1988, 239(4839): 487–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20.Fields, S. and Song, O.“A novel genetic system to detect protein-protein interactions.” Nature, 1989, 340(6230): 245–246.Google Scholar
21.Chalfie, M., Tu, Y., Euskirchen, G., Ward, W. W. and Prasher, D. C., “Green fluorescent protein as a marker for gene expression.” Science, 1994, 263(5148): 802–805.Google Scholar
22.Fire, A. et al., “Potent and specific genetic interference by double-stranded RNA in Caenorhabditis elegans.” Nature, 1998, 391(6669): 806–81.Google Scholar
23.Garfield, E. and Welljams-Dorof, A., “Citation data — Their use as quantitative indicators for science and technology evaluation and policy-making.” Science and Public Policy, 1992, 19:321–327.Google Scholar
24.Cohen, C. B.“Stem cell research in the US after the President's speech of August 2001.” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 2004(1): 97–114.Google Scholar
25.Dennis, C., “Stem cells rise in the East.” Nature, 2002, 419(6905): 334–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26.Birmingham, K., “Singapore pushes biomedical research.” Nat Med, 2001, 7(11): 1169–1170.Google Scholar
27.Cyranoski, D., “Taiwan: Biotech vision.” Nature, 2003, 421(6923): 672–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar