ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2026
When xenotransplantation enters the conversation: reflections on public involvement in research on a novel and controversial technology.
Article in Research involvement and engagement, 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.
- Public perception of xenotransplantation and its implication for policy and regulation: lessons learnt from a qualitative study of the Swedish public.Transplant international : official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation · 2026Article
- Xenotransplantation Literature Update: January-June 2026.XenotransplantationReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundXenotransplantation (XT) is being explored as a potential solution to organ shortages. Driven by revived scientific interest, XT has sparked debates that remain ethically charged. While much literature focuses on why community engagement is needed, this paper examines how XT itself reshapes the public involvement. We reflect on collaboration between researchers and public contributors during development of a national survey on UK public attitudes towards XT. Co-written by researchers and contributors, the paper draws on meeting notes and email exchanges to examine how XT shaped group dynamics. MAIN BODY: We argue that XT is not only a biomedical innovation but also a disruptive force in public involvement in research in three ways. First, as a distant prospect, it permits asking philosophical rather than merely practical questions. Second, its scientific uncertainty may unsettle the expert-public divide, fostering shared curiosity and speculation. Third, XT's emergent status makes visible how research may shape what XT becomes. Working on the development of the survey, we were thus not only engaging with XT's content but also reflecting on their role in its unfolding. Our reflections highlight how focus on technologies that remain in exploratory phases can reshape researcher-contributor dynamics by flattening hierarchies. While often framed through technological determinism, XT was instead experienced as contingent, something open to questioning, negotiation, and resistance. Rather than being the sole domain of experts, it appeared amenable to influence through research and public involvement.
conclusionXT, being a novel and controversial technology, unsettles conventional models of public involvement in research, opening new possibilities for participation and challenging assumptions about its purpose and dynamics.
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.