보건행정학회지 (Health Policy and Management)

  • 제23권4호
  • /
  • Pages.314-325
  • /
  • 2013
  • /
  • 1225-4266(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2289-0149(eISSN)
한국보건행정학회 (Korean Academy of Health Policy and Management)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

영국, 미국, 한국의 줄기세포연구에 관한 정책변동 비교 분석: Advocacy Coalition Framework 모형의 적용

Comparative Analysis of Stem Cell Research Policy Changes in UK, US, and South Korea: Application of Advocacy Coalition Framework Model

  • 배그린 (이화여자대학교 법학전문대학원 이화생명의료법연구소) ;
  • 강민아 (이화여자대학교 사회과학대학 행정학과)
  • Bae, Green (Ewha Institute for Biomedical Law & Ethics, Ewha Law School of Ewha Womans University) ;
  • Kang, Minah (Department of Administration, Ewha Womans University, College of Social Sciences)
  • 투고 : 2013.08.20
  • 심사 : 2013.11.07
  • 발행 : 2013.12.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Background: Stem cell research competition is accelerating globally since President Obama signed an executive order, repealing Bush-era policy that limited use of federal tax dollars for embryonic stem cell research. Methods: In this paper, we conducted a comparative analysis of stem cell research policy changes in three countries, including the Human Fertilisation Embryology Act (HFEA) of UK, executive order 13,505 (removing barriers to responsible scientific research involving human stem cells) of USA, and Bioethics and Safety Act of South Korea. Debates on stem cell research are based on conflicts of fundamental beliefs that exist in the supporting and opposing coalitions. We compared regional characteristics of the advocacy coalitions in three countries and presented various factors that might be related to the policy changes. Results: The UK government, parliament, and the HFEA have sought expert consultations and public opinions to establish guidelines. UK has made social consensus through continued discussion for a long time. US President's veto power was one strongest factors influencing policy. South Korean policy was influenced by public opinion and policy brokers. Also, South Korea has not made social consensus. UK had a strong leadership and strong adjustment of coalitions but US and South Korea had not. Dr. Hwang's scandal has had one of the greatest impacts on policy decision in South Korea. Conclusion: The power of public opinion was critical in all three countries. In particular, the influence of public opinion was noticeable in South Korea. Also it turned out that in US and South Korea, the presence of a policy broker who could pursue his or her goals was the most powerful factor among the advocacy coalition factors.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Removing Barriers to Responsible Scientific Research Involving Human Stem Cells Memorandum of March 9, 2009, Executive Order 13505, 74FR46 (Mar 11, 2009).
  2. Expanding Approved Stem Cell Lines in Ethically Responsible Ways, Executive Order 13435, 72FR120 (Jun 22, 2007).
  3. Kim OJ, Lee JS. Stem cell research ethics, policy and the law in UK: historical background and current status J Korean Bioethics Assoc 2005; 6(1):161-176.
  4. Kim HG. A study on the policy network of bioethics agenda setting in Korea. J Korean Bioethics Assoc 2005;4(1):55-74.
  5. Lee MH. U.S. stem cell policy change and implication: centered on ethical and political debate of Clinton, Bush, and Obama government. Life Res 2009;12:3-29.
  6. Han SG. Policy conflicts and coordination of legislation on bioethics issues in Korea [dissertation]. Seoul: Seoul National University; 2004.
  7. Kim IJ, Park HJ. Bioethics issues and science & technology regulation policy formation and change: the case of enactment process of ‘Bioethics & Biosafety Law'. Korean Policy Stud Rev 2011;20(1):111-149.
  8. Sabatier PA, Weible CM. The advocacy coalition framework: innovation and clarifications. In: Sabatier PA, editor. Theories of policy process. 2nd ed. Boulder: Westview Press; 2007. pp. 189-220.
  9. Lasswell HD. The policy orientation. In: Lerner D, Lasswell HD, editors. The policy sciences: recent developments in scope and method. Stanford: Stanford University Press; 1951. pp. 3-15.
  10. Lasswell HD. The emerging conception of the policy sciences. Policy Sci 1970;1:3-14. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00145189
  11. Lasswell HD. A pre-view of policy sciences. New York: American Elsevier Publishing Co.; 1971.
  12. Sabatier PA. An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein. Policy Sci 1988;21:129-168. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00136406
  13. Elliott C, Schlaepfer R. The advocacy coalition framework: application to the policy process for the development of forest certification in Sweden. J Eur Publ Pol 2001;8(4):642-661. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501760110064438
  14. Sabatier PA, Weible CM. The advocacy coalition framework. In: Sabatier PA, editor. Theories of policy process. 2nd ed. Boulder: Westview Press; 2007. pp. 117-166.
  15. Kim SY. The advocacy coalition framework in the analysis of policy process: examination of its theoretical and practical relevances. Korean Policy Stud Rev 2010;19(1):35-72.
  16. Sabatier PA, Jenkins-Smith HC. The advocacy coalition framework: an Assessment. Boulder: Westview Press; 1999.
  17. Meltsner AJ. Political feasibility and policy analysis. Public Admin Rev 1972;32(6):859-867. https://doi.org/10.2307/974646
  18. Park SO, Park CS. Analysis of the IPTV policy process: focusing on belief system change of advocacy coalition. Korean Public Admin Rev 2009; 43(3):197-228.
  19. Sabatier PA. Policy change over a decade or more. In: Sabatier PA, Jenkins-Smith HC, editors. Policy change and learning: an advocacy coalition approach. Boulder: Westview Press; 1993.
  20. Dawson G, Trust W. Mapping the landscape: national biomedical research outputs 1988-95. London: Wellcome Trust, Policy Research Dept.; 1998.
  21. Sohn HG. Analysis on Korean policy network for stem cell research: 1997-2005 [dissertation]. Seoul: Korea University; 2009.
  22. Sohn HG. Expectation dynamics of embryonic stem cell research: focusing on the establishment process of stem cell research center. J Sci Technol Stud 2008;8(1):55-95.
  23. The White House. Remarks of president Barack Obama: as prepared for delivery signing of stem cell executive order and scientific integrity presidential memorandum, Washington, DC, March 9, 2009 [Internet]. Washington (DC): The White House; 2009 [cited 2013 Nov 30]. Available from: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-of-the-President-As-Prepared-for-Delivery-Signing-of-Stem-Cell-Executive-Order-and-Scientific-Integrity-Presidential-Memorandum/.
  24. Stolberg SG. Obama lifts Bush's strict limits on stem cell research. The New York Times. 2009 Oct 3.
  25. Stolberg SG. Obama is leaving some stem cell issues to congress. The New York Times. 2009 Sep 3.
  26. Cho SK, Cho EH, Yoon JR. Public perception toward life science issues. Soc Sci Res 2009;20(1):169-187.
  27. Lee KB. The meaning and characteristics of death from a traditional Korean perspective. Korean J Med Ethics 2010;13(2):91-106.
  28. Kim SJ. Confucianism and bioethics in the age of bio-engineering. Philos East-West Res 2003;30:309-336.
  29. Kim BH. Confucian perspectives on embryo research in bioethics age. Philos East-West Res 2007;49:427-458.
  30. Clarke M. Embryo research: British Commons vote for ban. Nature 1985;313(6004):618.
  31. Evans HJ, McLaren A. Unborn children (protection) bill. Nature 1985; 314(6007):127-128. https://doi.org/10.1038/314127a0
  32. Kim DG. Discussion of the bioethics law: centered on public debate and the formation process of social agenda. Sci Technol Policy Trend 2001;11(5):36-49.
  33. Kim DG. Response in the bioengineering industry. Seoul: Citizen Science; 2002.
  34. Mulkay MJ. The embryo research debate: science and the politics of reproduction. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1997.
  35. Kim ES. Heterogeneous assemblages of bioethics and science: the "pre-embryo" debate in America. New Genet Soc 2008;27(4):323-337. https://doi.org/10.1080/14636770802485418
  36. Lee DI. Bioethics and safety act and the Catholic ethics. Catholic Theol Thought 2005;5:161-188.
  37. Kim JH, Kwon KH. Analysis of the decision-making process and introduction of Media representatives competition: applying a combination of model of advocacy coalition model (ACF) and the two-sided game theory (TLG). Korean Policy Stud Rev 2012;21(3):209-240.
  38. Choi EY, Ji HJ. Critical review of policy broker's role in advocacy coalition model. Korean Assoc Policy Stud 2008;(4):99-120.