ArticleStem cell reviews and reports2012
Stem cell policy exceptionalism: proceed with caution.
Article in Stem cell reviews and reports, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Content and Method of Information for Participants in Clinical Studies With Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells (iPSCs).Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2021Article
- Donor information in research and drug evaluation with induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs).Stem cell research & therapy · 2020Review
- Modeling Alzheimer's disease with human induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells.Molecular and cellular neurosciences · 2016Review
- Ethical issues in stem cell research and therapy.Stem cell research & therapy · 2014Review
- The DISCUSS Project: induced pluripotent stem cell lines from previously collected research biospecimens and informed consent: points to consider.Stem cells translational medicine · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The term "stem cell exceptionalism" has been used to characterize the policy response to controversies surrounding human embryonic stem cell research. For example, governments and funding agencies have adopted policies governing the derivation and use of human embryonic stem cell lines. These policies have effectively served to fill gaps in existing guidelines and regulations and signal that scientists are committed to a responsible framework for the conduct of research involving human embryos. Recent publications discuss whether ethical and policy issues associated with induced pluripotent cells (iPSCs) from non-embryonic sources create a need for further policy intervention. We suggest many of the issues identified by commentators may be addressed through the application of established policy frameworks governing the use of tissue, human stem cells, and research participation by human research subjects. To the extent, iPSC research intersects with hESC research (e.g. the creation of human gametes and/or embryos), the policy framework governing hESC appears sufficiently robust at this time.
Indexed as
Identifiers
21837381What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.