Should we rely on a "culture of compliance?"
Posted by Jesse Reynolds December 14, 2006
Biopolitical Times
Billions of dollars in public subsidies for anything should be managed in a way that's accountable and transparent. But the enabling law [PDF] for California's $3 billion stem cell research program creates neither accountability nor transparency. Meanwhile, the repeated message from the research agency has been, "Trust us. We're scientists."
Stem cell research, and especially the use of cloning techniques in it, raises a host of concerns beyond the moral status of the embryo, so the research standards are critical. But the staff member at the stem cell research agency responsible for the standards, Geoff Lomax, used this message again:
Stem cell research, and especially the use of cloning techniques in it, raises a host of concerns beyond the moral status of the embryo, so the research standards are critical. But the staff member at the stem cell research agency responsible for the standards, Geoff Lomax, used this message again:
Lomax said the key to successfully pursuing stem cell research lies in effective oversight of the program and developing "a culture of compliance" among scientists engaged in it.We've long advocated for "effective oversight," but neither the stem cell research agency nor the institutionally-affiliated committees that it asks to approve each research project are accountable to anyone else. While a "culture of compliance" sounds good, that's another way to say "trust us." And I don't trust self-regulation.