Literature DB >> 19168873

'Not taken in by media hype': how potential donors, recipients and members of the general public perceive stem cell research.

V L Peddie1, M Porter, C Counsell, L Caie, D Pearson, S Bhattacharya.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Views of embryo donors, scientists and members of the general public on embryonic stem cell research (eSCR) have been widely reported. Less is known about views of potential beneficiaries of stem cell therapy and the influence of media 'hype' on perceptions of eSCR among different groups of stakeholders. This study aimed to examine the perceptions of members of the general public as well as two patient groups likely to benefit from eSCR and to explore the role of the media in shaping these views.
METHODS: A qualitative study carried out in Aberdeen, Scotland included 15 people living with Parkinson's disease (PD), 15 people living with diabetes mellitus (DM), 15 couples with infertility and 21 members of the general public who volunteered for the study. Interview transcripts were analysed thematically using grounded theory.
RESULTS: The two patient groups likely to benefit from eSCR in the future differed in their knowledge (mainly gained from the media) and understanding of eSCR. Those living with PD were older, more debilitated and better informed than those with DM who showed limited interest in potential future benefits of eSCR. Infertile couples learnt about eSCR from health professionals who explained the process of embryo donation to them, and had sought no further information. Most of the general public had accessed information on eSCR and believed themselves to be more discerning than others because of their objectivity, intelligence and 'scientific awareness'. Although, the media and internet were primary sources of information for all except couples with infertility, members of all four groups claimed not to be taken in by the media 'hype' surrounding eSCR.
CONCLUSIONS: Those who expected to benefit from eSCR in the future as well as members of the general public differ in their susceptibility to media 'hype', while believing that they are not taken in by exaggerated claims of benefits. As respondents were a selected group who were not drawn from a representative sample, the findings cannot be generalized to a wider population.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19168873      PMCID: PMC2667789          DOI: 10.1093/humrep/den496

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hum Reprod        ISSN: 0268-1161            Impact factor:   6.918


  24 in total

Review 1.  Gene and cell-replacement therapy in the treatment of type 1 diabetes: how high must the standards be set?

Authors:  P A Halban; S E Kahn; C J Rhodes
Journal:  Diabetes       Date:  2001-10       Impact factor: 9.461

2.  Knowledge and attitudes of pregnant women with regard to collection, testing and banking of cord blood stem cells.

Authors:  Conrad V Fernandez; Kevin Gordon; Michiel Van den Hof; Shaureen Taweel; Françoise Baylis
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2003-03-18       Impact factor: 8.262

Review 3.  Embryonic death and the creation of human embryonic stem cells.

Authors:  Donald W Landry; Howard A Zucker
Journal:  J Clin Invest       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 14.808

4.  Scientific research is a moral duty.

Authors:  John Harris
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 2.903

5.  Stem cell research: the bigger picture.

Authors:  Rebecca Dresser
Journal:  Perspect Biol Med       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 1.416

6.  Participants in research.

Authors:  David L Sackett
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2005-05-21

7.  Public opinion and trust in scientists: the role of the research context, and the perceived motivation of stem cell researchers.

Authors:  Christine R Critchley
Journal:  Public Underst Sci       Date:  2008-07

Review 8.  Stem cells: potency, plasticity and public perception.

Authors:  R L Gardner
Journal:  J Anat       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 2.610

9.  Human embryonic stem cell research and the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation International - a work in progress.

Authors:  Concepcion R Nierras; Jim Stallard; Robert A Goldstein; Richard Insel
Journal:  Pediatr Diabetes       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 4.866

10.  Reasons for accepting or declining to participate in randomized clinical trials for cancer therapy.

Authors:  V Jenkins; L Fallowfield
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  2 in total

1.  Hype and public trust in science.

Authors:  Zubin Master; David B Resnik
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2011-11-02       Impact factor: 3.525

2.  Comparison of Patient and Expert Perceptions of the Attainment of Research Milestones in Parkinson's Disease.

Authors:  Patrick Bodilly Kane; Daniel M Benjamin; Roger A Barker; Anthony E Lang; Todd Sherer; Jonathan Kimmelman
Journal:  Mov Disord       Date:  2020-10-01       Impact factor: 10.338

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.