Bioscience Policies


The rapid pace of change in the biosciences makes setting biotechnology policies and regulating the life sciences difficult for governments, but no less necessary. Although government policies around the globe are sometimes classed as ‘pro‐science’ or ‘anti‐science’, that is a misleading oversimplification. Nurturing the ‘bioeconomy’ is a key goal for most national governments, leading in the United Kingdom to a comparatively loose regulatory policy, for example, in relation to mitochondrial transfer and germline genetic modification. But in genetic patenting, a recent US court decision has reversed the trend towards privatisation of the human genome, which many scientists perceived as impeding their research. Opposition to permissive regulatory policies thus often comes not only from civic or religious groups but also from within bioscience itself. In the area of vaccination against infectious disease, governments face an additional challenge from pandemics at the same time that financial austerity has prompted cutbacks in public health funding.

Key Concepts

  • It is an oversimplification to divide government policies into ‘pro‐science’ or ‘anti‐science’ categories.
  • Governments are under pressure to promote the ‘bioeconomy’ but must not ignore ethical dilemmas or permit new developments uncritically.
  • Scientists and the general public have formed surprising alliances in favour of greater transparency in intellectual property and against permissive patent laws that may actually impede rather than benefit science.
  • In addition to government, civic bodies and individual researchers, we need to examine the role of the private biosciences sector in lobbying for particular policies.
  • Religious groups are not the only source of opposition to some new scientific developments, and the so‐called ‘war’ between science and religion diverts our attention from other more important issues such as the commodification of bioscience.
  • Government bioscience policy on vaccination needs to address social issues of public safety and equality, not just individual autonomy to choose or reject immunisation.

Keywords: bioscience policy; bioeconomy; genetic patenting; reproductive technologies; mitochondrial transfer; germline genetic modification; vaccination; pandemics


Alkorta II (2008) Egg donation, a new case of gender exploitation? Paper presented at ‘Women and Bioethics’ conference of the Austrian National Commission for Bioethics, Vienna, June 2.

Allen A (2007) Vaccine: The Controversial Story of Medicine's Greatest Lifesaver. New York: Norton.

Association for Molecular Pathology et al. v Myriad Genetics Inc. (2013) 569 U.S. 12–398.

Australian Law Reform Commission (2004) Genes and Ingenuity: Gene Patenting and Human Health.

Block M (2014) Budget Cuts Hobble the World Health Organization's Ebola Response. National Public Radio, September 4.‐cuts‐hobble‐the‐world‐health‐organizations‐ebola‐response

Burgstaller JP, Johnston IG, Jones NS, et al. (2014) MtDNA segregation in heteroplasmic tissues is common in vivo and modulated by haplotype differences and developmental stage. Cell Reports 7 (6): 2031–2041.

Caulfield T, Gold ER and Cho M (2000) Patenting human genetic material: refocusing the debate. Nature Reviews Genetics 1: 227–231.

CCNE (Comité Centrale Nationale d'Ethique) (2000) Avis no. 64: L'avant‐projet de loi portant transposition, dans le code de la propriété intelectuelle de la directive 98/44/CR du Parlement Européen et du Conseil en date du 6 juillet 1998, relative á la protection juridique des inventions biotechnologiques. Paris: CCNE.

Colgrove JK (2006) State of Immunity: The Politics of Vaccination in Twentieth‐Century America. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Cooper M (2007) Life as Surplus: Bioethics and the Transformation of Capital. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.

Cooper M and Waldby C (2014) Clinical Labor: Tissue Donors and Research Subjects in the Global Bioeconomy. Durham, NS: Duke University Press.

Council for Responsible Genetics (2013) Accomplishments., accessed October 20, 2014.

Darnovsky M and Beitink ES (2014a) Biopolitics. In: Jennings B, (ed). Encyclopedia of Bioethics, 4th edn., pp. 421–431. Farmington Hills, MI: Gale.

Department of Health (UK) (2014) Mitochondrial Donation, consultation document, February.

Diamond v Chakrabarty (1980) 447 US 303.

Dickenson D (2005) The new French resistance: commodification rejected? Medical Law International 7 (1): 41–64.

Dickenson D (2011) Regulating (or not) reproductive medicine: an alternative to letting the market decide. Indian Journal of Medical Ethics 8 (3): 175–179.

Dickenson D (2013a) Me Medicine vs. We Medicine: Reclaiming Biotechnology for the Common Good. New York: Columbia University Press.

Dickenson D (2013b) The commercialization of human eggs in mitochondrial replacement research. The New Bioethics 19 (1): 18–29.

Eisenberg RS (2002) How can you patent genes? American Journal of Bioethics 2: 3–11.

Elliott C (2010) White Coat, Black Hat: Adventures on the Dark Side of Medicine. Boston: Beacon Press.

Food and Drug Administration (US). (2014) Oocyte Modification in Assisted Reproduction for the Prevention of Transmission of Mitochondrial Disease or Treatment of Infertility. Cellular, Tissue, and Gene Therapies Advisory Committee Meeting #59, February 25–26.

Freudenberg N (2014) Lethal But Legal: Corporations, Consumption, and Protecting Public Health. New York: Oxford University Press.

Hall S (2006) Stem cells: a status report. Hastings Center Report 36 (1): 16–22.

House of Lords Science and Technology Committee (2009) Genomic Medicine. London: HMSO.

Jensen K and Murray F (2005) International patenting: the landscape of the human genome. Science 310: 239–240.

John TJ and Shah NK (2011) Editorial: universal healthcare and nationwide public health: a tale of two declarations from one city. Indian Journal of Medical Research 134: 250–252.

Kahn J (2011) Translational budgets. Biopolitical Times, February 2.

Lees KA, Wortly PM and Coughlin SS (2005) Comparison of racial/ethnic disparities in adult immunization and cancer screening. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 29 (5): 404–411.

Nelkin D (2003) Is bioethics for sale? The dilemmas of conflict of interest. The Tocqueville Review 24: 45–50.

Parizer‐Krieff K (2013) La notion de ‘projet parental’ dans l'assistance médicale á la procréation (AMP). The Tocqueville Review 34 (2): 1–39.

Poland GA and Jacobson RM (2011) The age‐old struggle against the antivaccinationists. New England Journal of Medicine 364: 97–99.

President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) (2009) Report to the President on US Preparations for the 2009 H1N1 Influenza. Washington DC: PCAST.

Salter B, Cooper M and Dickins A (2006) China and the global stem cell bioeconomy: an emerging political strategy? Regenerative Medicine 1 (5): 671–683.

Sarojini NB, Sandhya S, Madhavi Y, Srinivasan S and Anjali S (2010) The HPV vaccine: science, ethics and regulation. Economic and Political Weekly 45: 27–34.

Shuren J (2014) Empowering consumers through accurate genetic tests. FDA Voice, June 26.

Stein R (2014) Scientists Question Safety of Genetically Altering Human Eggs, US National Public Radio, February 26.

Willsher K (2014) Couple charged over refusal to allow infants to be vaccinated. Guardian, October 10.

Wilson‐Kovacs DM, Weber S and Hauskeller C (2010) Stem cell clinical trials for cardiac repair: regulation as practical accomplishment. Sociology of Health and Illness 32 (1): 89–105.

Further Reading

Almeling R (2011) Sex Cells: The Medical Market for Eggs and Sperm. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Annas G (2010) Worst Case Bioethics: Death, Disaster and Public Health. New York: Oxford University Press.

Darnovsky M and Beitink ES (2014b) Biopolitics. In: Jennings B, (ed). Encyclopedia of Bioethics, 4th edn., pp. 421–431. Farmington Hills, MI: Gale.

Dickenson D (2012) Bioethics: All That Matters. London: Hodder Education.

Evans JH (2002) Playing God? Human Genetic Engineering and the Rationalization of Public Bioethical Debate, 1959–1995. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Sleeboom‐Faulkner M (2014) Global Morality and Life Science Practices in Asia: Assemblages of Life. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Sulston J and Ferry G (2003) The Common Thread: Science, Politics, Ethics and the Human Genome. London: Corgi.

Contact Editor close
Submit a note to the editor about this article by filling in the form below.

* Required Field

How to Cite close
Dickenson, Donna L(Feb 2015) Bioscience Policies. In: eLS. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester. [doi: 10.1002/9780470015902.a0025087]