Studying the lay of the land: Views and experiences of professionals in the translational pluripotent stem cell field

Regenerative Medicine

Volumn 11, Issue 1, 2016, Pages 63-71

  Habets, Michelle G J L ^a   Van Delden, Johannes J M ^a   Bredenoord, Annelien L ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER UTRECHT   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

empirical research; pluripotent stem cells; research ethics; translational research

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ATTITUDE ASSESSMENT; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH; PLURIPOTENT STEM CELL; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE; RESEARCH ETHICS; SEMI STRUCTURED INTERVIEW; STEM CELL RESEARCH; TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCH; CYTOLOGY; EXPERT WITNESS;

EXPERT TESTIMONY; HUMANS; PLURIPOTENT STEM CELLS; STEM CELL RESEARCH; TRANSLATIONAL MEDICAL RESEARCH;

EID: 84952684276     PISSN: 17460751     EISSN: 1746076X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2217/rme.15.78     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Thomson JA. Embryonic stem cell lines derived from human blastocysts. Science 282(5391), 1145-1147 (1998).
2. Takahashi K, Tanabe K, Ohnuki M et al. Induction of pluripotent stem cells from adult human fbroblasts by defned factors. Cell 131, 861-872 (2007).
3. Chapman AR, Scala CC. Evaluating the frst-in-human clinical trial of a human embryonic stem cell-based therapy. Kennedy Inst. Ethics J. 22(3), 243-261 (2012).
4. Hovatta O. The obstacles on the road to clinical applications of stem cell-based therapies: what has been done to overcome these obstacles and what remains to be done. In: Translational Stem Cell Research: Issues Beyond the Debate on the Moral Status of the Human Embryo. Hug K, Hermeren G (Eds). Springer Science+Business Media, NY, USA (2011).
5. Kimmelman J, London AJ, Ravina B et al. Launching invasive, frst-in-human trials against parkinson's disease: ethical considerations. Mov. Disord. 24(13), 1893-1901 (2009).
6. Lindvall O, Kokaia Z. Towards clinical application of stem cells in neurodegenerative disorders. In: Translational Stem Cells Research: Issues Beyond the Debate on the Moral Status of the Human Embryo. Hug K, Hermeren G (Eds). Springer Science+Business Media, NY, USA (2011).
7. Lo B, Kriegstein A, Grady D. Clinical trials in stem cell transplantation: guidelines for scientifc and ethical review. Clin. Trials 5(5), 517-522 (2008).
8. Habets MGJL, van Delden JJM, Bredenoord AL. The inherent ethical challenge of frst-in-human pluripotent stem cell trials. Regen. Med. 9(1), 1-3 (2014).
9. Bretzner F, Gilbert F, Baylis F, Brownstone RM. Target populations for frst-in-human embryonic stem cell research in spinal cord injury. Cell Stem Cell. 8(5), 468-475 (2011).
10. Kwon BK, Hillyer J, Tetzlaff W. Translational research in spinal cord injury: a survey of opinion from the SCI community. J. Neurotrauma 27(1), 21-33 (2010).
11. Asterias Biotherapeutics. http://asteriasbiotherapeutics.com
12. ClinicalTrials. www.clinicaltrials.gov
13. Schwartz SD, Regillo CD, Lam BL et al. Human embryonic stem cell-derived retinal pigment epithelium in patients with age-related macular degeneration and Stargardt's macular dystrophy: follow-up of two open-label Phase 1/2 studies. Lancet 385(9967), 509-516 (2014).
14. The Niche Knoepfer lab stem cell blog. www.ipscell.com/2015/07/frstipscstop
15. Kimmelman J. Ethics, ambiguity aversion, and the review of complex translational clinical trials. Bioethics 26(5), 242-250 (2012).
16. Caulfeld T, Rachul C, Zarzeczny A. The evolution of policy issues in stem cell research: an international survey. Stem Cell Rev. 8, 1037-1042 (2012).
17. Kon AA. The role of empirical research in bioethics. Am. J. Bioeth. 9, 59-65 (2009).
18. Academic partners. www.nirmresearch.nl
19. Guest G, Bunce A, Johnson L. How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field methods 18(1), 59-82 (2006).
20. NVivo qualitative data analysis software; version (8.0.332.0.SP4); QSR International Pty Ltd. (2012).
21. Appelbaum PS, Roth LH, Lidz C. The therapeutic misconception-informed consent in psychiatric research. Int. J. Law Psychiatry 5(3-4), 319-329 (1982).
22. Swierstra T, Rip A. Nano-ethics as NEST-ethics: patterns of moral argumentation about new and emerging science and technology. Nanoethics 1, 3-20 (2007).
23. Holmquest A. The rhetorical strategy of boundary-work. Argumentation 4(3), 235-258 (1990).
24. Gieryn TF. Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. Am. Sociol. Rev. 48(6), 781 (1983).
25. Wainwright SP, Williams C, Michael M, Farsides B, Cribb A. From bench to bedside? Biomedical scientists' expectations of stem cell science as a future therapy for diabetes. Soc. Sci. Med. 63(8), 2052-2064 (2006).
26. Wainwright SP, Williams C, Michael M, Farsides B, Cribb A. Ethical boundary-work in the embryonic stem cell laboratory. Sociol. Health Illn. 28(6), 732-748 (2006).
27. Bianco P, Cao X, Frenette PS et al. The meaning, the sense and the signifcance: translating the science of mesenchymal stem cells into medicine. Nat. Med. 19(1), 35-42 (2013).
28. Nowbar AN, Mielewczik M, Karavassilis M et al. Discrepancies in autologous bone marrow stem cell trials and enhancement of ejection fraction (DAMASCENE): weighted regression and meta-analysis. BMJ 348, 2688 (2014).
29. Caulfeld T, Kamenova K, Ogbogu U et al. Research ethics and stem cells: is it time to re-think current approaches to oversight? EMBO Rep. 16(1), 2-6 (2015).
30. Hoos A, Parmiani G, Hege K et al. A clinical development paradigm for cancer vaccines and related biologics. J. Immunother. 30(1), 1-15 (2007).
31. Hara A, Sato D, Sahara Y. New governmental regulatory system for stem cell-based therapies in Japan. Ther. Innov. Regul. Sci. 48(6), 681-688 (2014).
32. Agrawal M, Emanuel EJ Ethics of Phase 1 oncology studies-reexamining the arguments and data. JAMA-J. Am. Med. Assoc. 290(8), 1075-1082 (2003).
33. Markman M. " Therapeutic intent " in Phase 1 oncology trials-a justifable objective. Arch. Intern. Med. 166(14), 1446-1448 (2006).
34. Miller FG, Joffe S. Beneft in Phase 1 oncology trials: therapeutic misconception or reasonable treatment option? Clin. Trials 5(6), 617-623 (2008).
35. Goodare H, Smith R. The rights of patients in research. BMJ 310(6990), 1277-1278 (1995).
36. Hanley B. Involving consumers in designing, conducting, and interpreting randomised controlled trials: questionnaire survey. BMJ 322(7285), 519-523 (2001).
37. Varma S, Jenkins T, Wendler D. How do children and parents make decisions about pediatric clinical research? J. Pediatr. Hematol. Oncol. 30(11), 823-828 (2008).
38. Hayden L. Bodies of science: the experiences of human research participants of health studies. [PhD thesis]. McMaster University, Hamilton Ontario, Canada (2009).
39. Cox SM, McDonald M. Ethics is for human subjects too: participant perspectives on responsibility in health research. Soc. Sci. Med. 98, 224-231 (2013).
40. Ross S, Grant A, Counsell C, Gillespie W, Russell I, Prescott R. Barriers to participation in randomised controlled trials: a systematic review. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 52, 1143-1156 (1999).
41. McDonald M, Cox S. Moving toward evidence-based human participant protection. J. Acad. Ethics 7(1-2), 1-16 (2009).
42. Felt U, Bister MD, Strassnig M, Wagner U. Refusing the information paradigm: informed consent, medical research, and patient participation. Health (London) 13, 87-106 (2009).