英国受感染血液调查报告的科学评论:个人反思。

IF 3 2区 医学 Q2 HEMATOLOGY
Haemophilia Pub Date : 2025-07-29 DOI:10.1111/hae.70100
Peter A. Feldman
{"title":"英国受感染血液调查报告的科学评论:个人反思。","authors":"Peter A. Feldman","doi":"10.1111/hae.70100","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>The UK Infected Blood Inquiry considered events related to the transmission of pathogens via infected blood, plasma and plasma-derived products. The report included conclusions about whether the scientific knowledge and technology could have prevented some of these infections.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Aim</h3>\n \n <p>This review offers a personal reflection from the perspective of plasma fractionation science.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>The review is based on personal experience of developing virus-inactivated products in the 1980s.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>It finds that although the Inquiry achieved primary purposes of recording the experiences of victims and their families and recommending that compensation be paid, it misinterpreted some of the scientific evidence. An explanation of this misunderstanding is described in terms of following aspects: the uncertain state of scientific knowledge at the time; the impracticality of using cryoprecipitate as a substitute for coagulation factor concentrates; plasma pool size; the improbability of developing virus-inactivated coagulation factor concentrates earlier; and risk–benefit assessment challenge faced by haemophilia healthcare providers at the time.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>This review offers a balance to the Inquiry's opinions about professional capabilities, which could otherwise undermine public confidence in science, discredit scientists and physicians who can no longer defend their reputations and inhibit future medical advances.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":12819,"journal":{"name":"Haemophilia","volume":"31 5","pages":"823-829"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Scientific Review of the UK Infected Blood Inquiry Report: A Personal Reflection\",\"authors\":\"Peter A. Feldman\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/hae.70100\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Introduction</h3>\\n \\n <p>The UK Infected Blood Inquiry considered events related to the transmission of pathogens via infected blood, plasma and plasma-derived products. The report included conclusions about whether the scientific knowledge and technology could have prevented some of these infections.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Aim</h3>\\n \\n <p>This review offers a personal reflection from the perspective of plasma fractionation science.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>The review is based on personal experience of developing virus-inactivated products in the 1980s.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>It finds that although the Inquiry achieved primary purposes of recording the experiences of victims and their families and recommending that compensation be paid, it misinterpreted some of the scientific evidence. An explanation of this misunderstanding is described in terms of following aspects: the uncertain state of scientific knowledge at the time; the impracticality of using cryoprecipitate as a substitute for coagulation factor concentrates; plasma pool size; the improbability of developing virus-inactivated coagulation factor concentrates earlier; and risk–benefit assessment challenge faced by haemophilia healthcare providers at the time.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>This review offers a balance to the Inquiry's opinions about professional capabilities, which could otherwise undermine public confidence in science, discredit scientists and physicians who can no longer defend their reputations and inhibit future medical advances.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12819,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Haemophilia\",\"volume\":\"31 5\",\"pages\":\"823-829\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Haemophilia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hae.70100\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEMATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Haemophilia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hae.70100","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

英国受感染血液调查考虑了通过受感染血液、血浆和血浆衍生产品传播病原体的相关事件。该报告包括关于科学知识和技术是否可以预防其中一些感染的结论。目的:从等离子体分离科学的角度进行个人反思。方法:根据个人在20世纪80年代研制灭活病毒产品的经验进行综述。结果:虽然调查达到了记录受害者及其家属的经历并建议赔偿的主要目的,但它误解了一些科学证据。对这种误解的解释可以从以下几个方面来描述:当时科学知识的不确定状态;低温沉淀代替凝血因子浓缩液的不可行性;等离子体池大小;发生病毒灭活凝血因子的不可能性较早集中;以及当时血友病医疗服务提供者面临的风险-收益评估挑战。结论:这项审查为调查委员会关于专业能力的意见提供了一个平衡,否则这些意见可能会破坏公众对科学的信心,使科学家和医生失去信誉,无法再捍卫自己的声誉,并阻碍未来的医学进步。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Scientific Review of the UK Infected Blood Inquiry Report: A Personal Reflection

Scientific Review of the UK Infected Blood Inquiry Report: A Personal Reflection

Introduction

The UK Infected Blood Inquiry considered events related to the transmission of pathogens via infected blood, plasma and plasma-derived products. The report included conclusions about whether the scientific knowledge and technology could have prevented some of these infections.

Aim

This review offers a personal reflection from the perspective of plasma fractionation science.

Methods

The review is based on personal experience of developing virus-inactivated products in the 1980s.

Results

It finds that although the Inquiry achieved primary purposes of recording the experiences of victims and their families and recommending that compensation be paid, it misinterpreted some of the scientific evidence. An explanation of this misunderstanding is described in terms of following aspects: the uncertain state of scientific knowledge at the time; the impracticality of using cryoprecipitate as a substitute for coagulation factor concentrates; plasma pool size; the improbability of developing virus-inactivated coagulation factor concentrates earlier; and risk–benefit assessment challenge faced by haemophilia healthcare providers at the time.

Conclusion

This review offers a balance to the Inquiry's opinions about professional capabilities, which could otherwise undermine public confidence in science, discredit scientists and physicians who can no longer defend their reputations and inhibit future medical advances.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Haemophilia
Haemophilia 医学-血液学
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
28.20%
发文量
226
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Haemophilia is an international journal dedicated to the exchange of information regarding the comprehensive care of haemophilia. The Journal contains review articles, original scientific papers and case reports related to haemophilia care, with frequent supplements. Subjects covered include: clotting factor deficiencies, both inherited and acquired: haemophilia A, B, von Willebrand''s disease, deficiencies of factor V, VII, X and XI replacement therapy for clotting factor deficiencies component therapy in the developing world transfusion transmitted disease haemophilia care and paediatrics, orthopaedics, gynaecology and obstetrics nursing laboratory diagnosis carrier detection psycho-social concerns economic issues audit inherited platelet disorders.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信