ReviewBiologia futura2021
The ethics of regenerative medicine.
Review in Biologia futura, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Ethical Implications of Tissue Engineering for Regenerative Purposes: A Systematic Review.Tissue engineering. Part B, Reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Current challenges and future directions of ATMPs in regenerative medicine.Regenerative therapy · 2025Review
- Determination of Biochemical and Metabolomic Characteristics of Sheep Blood Serum and Their Application in Clinical Practice.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Editorial: One Health and Veterinary Regenerative Medicine: Translational Applications.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2022Article
- Inclusivity and diversity: Integrating international perspectives on stem cell challenges and potential.Stem cell reports · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Most developments in regenerative medicine have in common that there are many uncertainties and knowledge gaps. These features make the evaluation of long-term consequences of the available options difficult and have consequences for the ethical issues raised. This paper presents an overview of ethical issues raised in regenerative medicine, using as a starting point a list of stakeholders and their interests. Ethical issues are introduced via a simplified account of a project that focuses on several difficult problems, as well as a conceptual framework consisting of the following key concepts: present situation, goals, difficulties on the road toward the goals, and strategies for dealing with the difficulties. The list of ethical issues discussed includes safety and efficacy, patient consent, information, professional responsibilities, as well as equity and fairness. The issues and the underlying values need to be clarified, specified, debated, and ranked in order of importance. A particular problem is that values sometimes clash: Certain values can be achieved only at the expense of others. If and when values clash, principles are available that can guide the decision making. The paper comments on two such principles with implications for the particular issue of patient access to experimental treatments: the precautionary principle and the principle of proportionality. The paper ends with some conclusions for the future.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34554481What 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.