ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2013
How can ethics relate to science? The case of stem cell research.
Article in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Regulation of Stem Cell Technology in Malaysia: Current Status and Recommendations.Science and engineering ethics · 2020Review
- Ethical considerations in the translation of regenerative biofabrication technologies into clinic and society.Biofabrication · 2016Review
- I Want More and Better Cells! - An Outreach Project about Stem Cells and Its Impact on the General Population.PloS one · 2015Article
- Mesenchymal stem/progenitor cell isolation from tooth extraction sockets.Journal of dental research · 2014Article
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
We live in an era of an important turning point in the relationship between ethics (or, more accurately, bioethics) and science, notably due to both public interest and the gradual tightening of the gap in time between scientific discoveries and ethical reflection. The current bioethics debates of emerging situations (pluripotent stem cells, gene therapy, nanotechnology) have undoubtedly contributed to this change. Today, science happens and bioethics reflects on the possibilities, considers the risks, and advances proposals, which, without being scientific, can also imprint a mark on the path of scientific development. In this article, through the narrative of stem cell research, we will try to illustrate how bringing a bioethical viewpoint to the scientific debate can become a healthy exercise in both ethics and science, especially as narratives shift, as was the case in this field due to the introduction of induced pluripotent stem cells, the advent of which is not easily dissociated from the controversies related to embryo research. We should perhaps welcome this trend as promising for the future relationship between ethics and scientific research, providing a stimulus (and not a block) to the ever-evolving scientific discourse.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.