The 2003 SARS pandemic heralded the return of quarantine as a vital part of twenty-first century public health practice. Over the last two decades, MERS, Ebola, and other emerging infectious diseases each posed unique challenges for applying quarantine ethics lessons learned from the 2003 SARS-CoV-1 outbreak. In an increasingly interdependent and connected global world, the use of quarantine to contain the spread of SARS-CoV-2, or COVID-19, similarly poses new and unexpected ethical challenges. In this essay, we look beyond standard debates about the ethics of quarantine and state power to explore a key quarantine principle, Reciprocity, and how it is being negotiated by healthcare workers, volunteers, and citizens in the context of the Wuhan, China, quarantine. We analyze Reciprocity through the lens of two Wuhan case studies: (1) healthcare workers, particularly nurses, who are simultaneously essential workers and quarantined citizens, asked by their hospital administration to shave their heads because adequate PPE was not available, and (2) citizen-to-citizen mutual aid societies attempting to fill gaps in essential supplies left unfilled by the state. We analyze social media and video-blogs from Wuhan, on the platforms of Douyin and Sina Weibo, to understand how people define and respond to ethical and legal obligations in the wake of COVID-19. It is no surprise that quarantine principles from the 2003 SARS outbreak are inadequate for COVID-19 and that both infectious disease outbreak responses and ethics must adapt to the virtual age. We offer ideas to strengthen and clarify Reciprocal obligations for the state, hospital administrators, and citizens as the globe prepares for the next wave of COVID-19 circulating now.

Researchers can now coax human pluripotent stem cells to imitate the structure and spontaneous self-organization of the developing human embryo. Although these stem cell-based embryo models present an advantageous alternative to embryo research, they also raise ethical and policy challenges. In 2021, the International Society for Stem Cell Research revised its Guidelines for Stem Cell Research and Clinical Translation, providing contemporaneous best practices for ethical conduct in the field. The Guidelines complement national governance frameworks; however, they also contain contentious and aspirational norms that might catalyze change in research practice and in the enactment of national policies. Using a sample of 11 research-intensive countries, the authors compare research policy frameworks against the International Society for Stem Cell Research Guidelines to showcase how developments in global and national policies might affect stem cell-based embryo model research governance and illustrate fertile areas for ethical reflection and policy development.

The past decades witnessed the slow evolution of Europe's heterogeneous stem cell (SC) policy and substantial scientific advances in the field. Parallel to these developments, professional organizations have grown in influence. With the recently revised International Society for Stem Cell Research's Guidelines as a backdrop, we address the evolution of SC policies in 46 European countries and discuss how they fare against evolving ethical standards, societal views, and scientific advances. We identify areas of convergence, divergence, and the suitability of extant governance mechanisms to meet their stewardship roles. Europe represents a rich case study as it encompasses a wide range of policy approaches present worldwide. Comparative studies provide an opportunity to promote insight into national frameworks and to foster international harmonization.