Publications (14) View all
-
Article: What's Missing? Discussing Stem Cell Translational Research in Educational Information on Stem Cell "Tourism"
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Stem cell tourism is a growing industry in which patients pursue unproven stem cell therapies for a wide variety of illnesses and conditions. It is a challenging market to regulate due to a number of factors including its international, online, direct-to-consumer approach. Calls to provide education and information to patients, their families, physicians, and the general public about the risks associated with stem cell tourism are mounting. Initial studies examining the perceptions of patients who have pursued stem cell tourism indicate many are highly critical of the research and regulatory systems in their home countries and believe them to be stagnant and unresponsive to patient needs. We suggest that educational material should include an explanation of the translational research process, in addition to other aspects of stem cell tourism, as one means to help promote greater understanding and, ideally, curb patient demand for unproven stem cell interventions. The material provided must stress that strong scientific research is required in order for therapies to be safe and have a greater chance at being effective. Through an analysis of educational material on stem cell tourism and translational stem cell research from patient groups and scientific societies, we describe essential elements that should be conveyed in educational material provided to patients. Although we support the broad dissemination of educational material on stem cell translational research, we also acknowledge that education may simply not be enough to engender patient and public trust in domestic research and regulatory systems. However, promoting patient autonomy by providing good quality information to patients so they can make better informed decisions is valuable in itself, irrespective of whether it serves as an effective deterrent of stem cell tourism.The Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics 03/2013; 41(1):254-268. · 1.22 Impact Factor -
Article: The Evolution of Policy Issues in Stem Cell Research: An International Survey.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Stem cell research remains a tremendously promising yet controversial field of study. It continues to attract considerable public interest and generate discussion and debate. However, while the high profile of this field has endured, the tone and nature of the discourse that drives this profile appears to be changing. In order to get a better sense of how these potential shifts are perceived by individuals directly embedded in the field, we conducted an international internet survey of members of the stem cell research community. Our participants included individuals publishing on both scientific and ethical, legal and social issues topics. We explored the degree to which participants perceived that key policy issues were becoming more or less contentious over time. We queried views regarding the effect of regulatory frameworks on emerging stem cell research technologies and the extent to which participants experience pressure related to clinical translation. We also explored participants' relationships with industry, experience with patents and perceptions regarding the emphasis placed on the potential economic benefits of stem cell research. Our results suggest that while traditional debates such as those surrounding the moral status of the embryo remain, other issues more closely associated with clinical translation and commercialization are perceived as becoming increasingly contentious. This survey provides useful insight into the perspectives of a sample of active researchers working in countries around the world as well as an opportunity to reflect on the likely direction of future stem cell policy debates.Stem cell reviews 08/2012; · 5.08 Impact Factor -
Article: Stem cell tourism and Canadian family physicians.
Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien 04/2012; 58(4):365-8, e182-5. · 1.19 Impact Factor -
Article: Legal liability and research ethics boards: the case of neuroimaging and incidental findings.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Neuroimaging research covers a wide range of intriguing issues from revealing brain structures to investigating what happens in our brain when we lie. The field appears to be thriving, but skepticism and alertness to the various ethical, scientific, policy and philosophical challenges associated with it also appear to be on the rise. One particularly complex issue concerns what to do with incidental findings that emerge during the course of neuroimaging research. Research ethics boards (REBs) play a central role in research oversight. In this paper, we will consider some of the potential issues associated with REB liability in negligence in the context of incidental findings in neuroimaging research.International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 03/2012; 35(2):137-45. · 1.19 Impact Factor -
Article: The rise of neuroskepticism.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The increasing popularity of functional neuroimaging technologies in multiple disciplines has gained attention from within and outside the field of neuroscience. As the scope of research employing functional neuroimaging technologies broadens, there appears to also be a growing concern about the use of these technologies and the related social, ethical and legal issues. These concerns have been coined 'neuroskepticism'. First, we review how the term neuroskepticism has been previously used and defined. Second, we examine review and commentary articles published in journals with top impact factors, probing the presence and evolution of neuroskepticism within these articles. Results demonstrate a wide, but expected, range of issues associated with functional neuroimaging. It also appears that neuroskepticism is increasing as functional neuroimaging technologies gain popularity, which may indicate the presence of a classic Gartner Hype Cycle.International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 03/2012; 35(2):77-81. · 1.19 Impact Factor
