ReviewAnatomical sciences education2026
The lack of legal protections in the United States to prevent commercializing the dead for education and research: Consequences and risks to anatomists.
Review in Anatomical sciences education, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ethical-legal vulnerability in body procurement across national contexts.Anatomical sciences education · 2026Article
- Anatomists' experience and perspectives on the international transfer of human remains for the purpose of education.Anatomical sciences education · 2026Article
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
A lack of minimum legal standards for body donation programs undermines recent strides by anatomy professionals to promote ethical best practices in the United States (US). In particular, the commercialization of the dead by nontransplant tissue banks poses a risk to the public trust in academic body donation programs. The Uniform Anatomical Gift Act was created in the 1960s allowing for an anatomical gift to be made for transplantation, therapy, education, and research. It originally did not prohibit the buying and selling of human remains; later, it was only prohibited for transplantation and therapy. This allowed in the 1990s for a lucrative industry to grow as bioskills training for medical device companies developed. Attempts to hold unethical actors accountable through court cases have been limited due to a lack of national laws and jurisdiction issues. Despite the scandals associated with nontransplant tissue banks, no recent legislation has banned the commercialization of the dead for education and research. Recommendations for new US legislation include having a national registry of body donation programs, registrants, and other technical topics. However, few recommendations exist that focus on ethical finances and directly address commercialization. Anatomists, ethicists, and those in anatomical services should develop ethical financial models in body donation programs that can be used to inform recommended minimal national legal standards in the US.
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.