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.

서론
방법
결과
고찰
REFERENCES

Stem cell research, Embryonic stem cells, Advocacy coalition framework, Policy changes