Complicity in stem cell research: The case of induced pluripotent stem cells

Human Reproduction

Volumn 25, Issue 9, 2010, Pages 2175-2180

  Devolder, Katrien ^a  

^a GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

Author keywords

complicity; embryo research; embryonic stem cells; induced pluripotent stem cells; moral status

Indexed keywords

COMPLICITY; EMBRYONIC STEM CELL; HUMAN; MALPRACTICE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; NOTE; PLURIPOTENT STEM CELL;

EID: 77955948581     PISSN: 02681161     EISSN: 14602350     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deq176     Document Type: Note

References (22)

1. Baker M. State of the stem cell. Nat Rep Stem Cells 2009; doi:10.1038/stemcells.2009.132.(20 April 2010 date last accessed). Christian Telegraph. Adult stem cells more promising than embryonic. Christian Telegraph (2010) available at http://www.christiantelegraph.com/issue7717.html (20 April 2010 date last accessed).
2. Daley GQ, Lensch MW, Jaenisch R, Meissner A, Plath K, Yamanaka S. Broader implications of defining standards for the pluripotency of iPSCs. Cell Stem Cell 2009;4:200-201.
3. Devolder K, Harris J. Compromise and moral complicity in the embryonic stem cell debate. In: Athanassoulis N (ed). Philosophical Reflections on Medical Ethics. Palgrave MacMillan: Hampshire, UK, 2005, 88-108.
4. Doerflinger RM. The ethics of funding embryonic stem cell research: a Catholic viewpoint. Kennedy Inst Ethics J 1999;9:137-150.
5. Gardner J. Complicity and causality. Crim Law Philos 2007;1:127-141.
6. Gillam L. Arguing by analogy in the fetal tissue debate. Bioethics 1997;11; 397-412.
7. Green RM. Benefiting from 'evil': an incipient moral problem in human stem cell research. Bioethics 2002;16:544-556.
8. Guenin LM.Afailed noncomplicity scheme. Stem Cells Dev 2004;13:456-459.
9. Henderson M. Medical potential of IPS stem cells exaggerated says world authority. Times Online 2010; available at http://www.timesonline.co. uk/tol/news/science/medicine/article7029447.ece (20 April 2010 date last accessed).
10. Hu BY, Weick JP, Yu J, Ma LX, Zhang XQ, Thomson JA, Zhang SC. Neural differentiation of human induced pluripotent stem cells follows developmental principles but with variable potency. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2010;107:4335-4340; doi:10.1073/pnas.0910012107.
11. Krauthammer C. Stem cell vindication for Bush. Washington Post 2007 30 November:A23.
12. Kutz C. Causeless complicity. Crim Law Philos 2007;1:289-305.
13. Moraczewski AS. May one benefit from the evil deeds of others? Natl Cathol Bioeth Q 2002;2:43-47.
14. Outka G. The ethics of embryonic stem cell research and the principle of 'nothing is lost'. Yale J Health Policy Law Ethics 2009;9:558-602.
15. Pennings G, Mertes H. Stem cell research policies: who's afraid of complicity? Reprod Biomed Online 2009;19:38-42.
16. Prieur MR, Atkinson J, Hardingham L, Hill D, Kernaghan G, Miller D, Morton S, Rowell M, Vallely JF, Wilson S. Stem cell research in a catholic institution: yes or no? Kennedy Inst Ethics J 2006;16:73-98.
17. Rao M, Condic M. Alternative sources of pluripotent stem cells: ethical and scientific issues revisited. Stem Cells Dev 2008;17:1-10.
18. Robertson JA. Causative vs. beneficial complicity in the embryonic stem cell debate. Conn L Rev 2004;36:1099-1113.
19. Rosenbaum AS. The use of Nazi medical experimentation data: memorial or betrayal? Int J Appl Phil 1989;4:59-67.
20. Takala T, Häyry M. Benefiting from past wrongdoing, human embryonic stem cell lines, and the fragility of the German legal position. Bioethics 2007;21:150-159.
21. Yamanaka S. Pluripotency and nuclear reprogramming. Philos Trans R Soc Lond A 2008;363:2079-2087 (2080).
22. Yu J, Vodyanik MA, Smuga-Otto K, Antosiewicz-Bourget J, Frane JL, Tian S, Nie J, Jonsdottir GA, Ruotti V, Stewart R et al. Induced pluripotent stem cell lines derived from human somatic cells. Science 2007;318:1917-1920.