Edilene Lopes, Rachel Ankeny, Dan Santos, Mengqi Hu, Tess Whitton, Michail Ivanov, Joan Leach, Dianne Nicol, Christine Wells
{"title":"Exploring Patient Organization Involvement in Stem Cell Research: Insights from the Lifeworld.","authors":"Edilene Lopes, Rachel Ankeny, Dan Santos, Mengqi Hu, Tess Whitton, Michail Ivanov, Joan Leach, Dianne Nicol, Christine Wells","doi":"10.1007/s11673-025-10516-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This article examines the role of patient organizations as mediators between patients and researchers in stem cell research in Australia. We conducted semi-structured interviews with stem cell researchers and patient organization representatives as part of a broader project to deepen public understanding and foster more robust scientific practices in stem cell-based research and therapies. We used Habermas's Theory of Communicative Action as our theoretical framework to explore the relationships between patient organizations and researchers. Using this framework allowed the identification of two different ways of conceptualizing health and illness-one based on patients' experiences, which we call \"the lifeworld,\" and another grounded on researchers', health professionals', and policymakers' professional perspectives, which we call \"the rational system.\" We found that the different conceptualizations identified influenced the interactions between patients and researchers (and other professionals involved in the healthcare system). Patient organizations, then, act as articulators of patients' viewpoints in this scenario, which can have advantages and disadvantages. We also found that researchers need to develop less transactional forms of communication with these organizations and that policymakers and regulators could benefit from developing guidelines to encourage researchers to use diverse strategies to engage more meaningfully with patients at individual and organizational levels.</p>","PeriodicalId":50252,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Bioethical Inquiry","volume":" ","pages":"699-713"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13645905/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Bioethical Inquiry","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-025-10516-6","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/3/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
This article examines the role of patient organizations as mediators between patients and researchers in stem cell research in Australia. We conducted semi-structured interviews with stem cell researchers and patient organization representatives as part of a broader project to deepen public understanding and foster more robust scientific practices in stem cell-based research and therapies. We used Habermas's Theory of Communicative Action as our theoretical framework to explore the relationships between patient organizations and researchers. Using this framework allowed the identification of two different ways of conceptualizing health and illness-one based on patients' experiences, which we call "the lifeworld," and another grounded on researchers', health professionals', and policymakers' professional perspectives, which we call "the rational system." We found that the different conceptualizations identified influenced the interactions between patients and researchers (and other professionals involved in the healthcare system). Patient organizations, then, act as articulators of patients' viewpoints in this scenario, which can have advantages and disadvantages. We also found that researchers need to develop less transactional forms of communication with these organizations and that policymakers and regulators could benefit from developing guidelines to encourage researchers to use diverse strategies to engage more meaningfully with patients at individual and organizational levels.
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