The Ethics of Stem Cell-Based Embryo-Like Structures : A Focus Group Study on the Perspectives of Dutch Professionals and Lay Citizens.

IF 1.8 3区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS
A M Pereira Daoud, W J Dondorp, A L Bredenoord, G M W R de Wert
{"title":"The Ethics of Stem Cell-Based Embryo-Like Structures : A Focus Group Study on the Perspectives of Dutch Professionals and Lay Citizens.","authors":"A M Pereira Daoud, W J Dondorp, A L Bredenoord, G M W R de Wert","doi":"10.1007/s11673-023-10325-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In order to study early human development while avoiding the burdens associated with human embryo research, scientists are redirecting their efforts towards so-called human embryo-like structures (hELS). hELS are created from clusters of human pluripotent stem cells and seem capable of mimicking early human development with increasing accuracy. Notwithstanding, hELS research finds itself at the intersection of historically controversial fields, and the expectation that it might be received as similarly sensitive is prompting proactive law reform in many jurisdictions, including the Netherlands. However, studies on the public perception of hELS research remain scarce. To help guide policymakers and fill this gap in the literature, we conducted an explorative qualitative study aimed at mapping the range of perspectives in the Netherlands on the creation and research use of hELS. This article reports on a subset of our findings, namely those pertaining to (the degrees of and requirements for) confidence in research with hELS and its regulation. Despite commonly found disparities in confidence on emerging biotechnologies, we also found wide consensus regarding the requirements for having (more) confidence in hELS research. We conclude by reflecting on how these findings could be relevant to researchers and (Dutch) policymakers when interpreted within the context of their limitations.</p>","PeriodicalId":50252,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Bioethical Inquiry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Bioethical Inquiry","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-023-10325-9","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In order to study early human development while avoiding the burdens associated with human embryo research, scientists are redirecting their efforts towards so-called human embryo-like structures (hELS). hELS are created from clusters of human pluripotent stem cells and seem capable of mimicking early human development with increasing accuracy. Notwithstanding, hELS research finds itself at the intersection of historically controversial fields, and the expectation that it might be received as similarly sensitive is prompting proactive law reform in many jurisdictions, including the Netherlands. However, studies on the public perception of hELS research remain scarce. To help guide policymakers and fill this gap in the literature, we conducted an explorative qualitative study aimed at mapping the range of perspectives in the Netherlands on the creation and research use of hELS. This article reports on a subset of our findings, namely those pertaining to (the degrees of and requirements for) confidence in research with hELS and its regulation. Despite commonly found disparities in confidence on emerging biotechnologies, we also found wide consensus regarding the requirements for having (more) confidence in hELS research. We conclude by reflecting on how these findings could be relevant to researchers and (Dutch) policymakers when interpreted within the context of their limitations.

基于干细胞的类胚胎结构的伦理问题 :关于荷兰专业人士和普通公民观点的焦点小组研究》。
为了研究人类的早期发育,同时避免与人类胚胎研究相关的负担,科学家们正在将研究方向转向所谓的类人类胚胎结构(hELS)。类人类胚胎结构是由人类多能干细胞集群产生的,似乎能够越来越准确地模拟人类的早期发育。尽管如此,"类胚胎结构 "研究发现自己处于历史上有争议的领域的交汇点,而且人们预期它可能会被视为类似的敏感领域,这促使包括荷兰在内的许多司法管辖区进行积极的法律改革。然而,关于公众对水文学为环境、生命和政策服务研究的看法的研究仍然很少。为了帮助指导政策制定者并填补这一文献空白,我们开展了一项探索性定性研究,旨在了解荷兰公众对创建和研究使用水文学为环境、生命和政策服务的看法。本文报告了我们研究结果的一个子集,即与对使用水文学为环境、生命和政策服务进行研究的信心(程度和要求)及其监管有关的内容。尽管在对新兴生物技术的信心方面普遍存在差异,但我们也发现,在对 hELS 研究抱有(更多)信心的要求方面存在广泛共识。最后,我们反思了这些发现在其局限性的背景下如何与研究人员和(荷兰)政策制定者相关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 医学-医学:伦理
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
8.30%
发文量
67
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The JBI welcomes both reports of empirical research and articles that increase theoretical understanding of medicine and health care, the health professions and the biological sciences. The JBI is also open to critical reflections on medicine and conventional bioethics, the nature of health, illness and disability, the sources of ethics, the nature of ethical communities, and possible implications of new developments in science and technology for social and cultural life and human identity. We welcome contributions from perspectives that are less commonly published in existing journals in the field and reports of empirical research studies using both qualitative and quantitative methodologies. The JBI accepts contributions from authors working in or across disciplines including – but not limited to – the following: -philosophy- bioethics- economics- social theory- law- public health and epidemiology- anthropology- psychology- feminism- gay and lesbian studies- linguistics and discourse analysis- cultural studies- disability studies- history- literature and literary studies- environmental sciences- theology and religious studies
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信