Literature DB >> 22941397

Communicating risks and benefits about ethically controversial topics: the case of induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells.

Holly Longstaff1, Michael McDonald, Jennifer Bailey.   

Abstract

Many are supportive of approaches that incorporate lay citizens into policy making and risk management decisions. However, a great deal of learning must first take place about how citizen engagement for controversial topics is best accomplished. Online risk communication efforts are increasing in popularity but there is little empirical evidence accrued to demonstrate the effectiveness of such methods. The intention of our overall study is to create a powerful method for in-depth two-way communication with the public and expert communities about complex and sensitive issues at the heart of stem cell (SC) research. The fundamental objective is to raise awareness of SC science with lay citizens by fostering more holistic or "all things considered" ethical judgments. Our risk communication study demonstrates that lay citizens are both interested in, and capable of learning about, complex scientific issues provided the right tools are used to convey information and assess understanding. Our results show that it is worth the time and effort for SC researchers to continue posting podcasts and FAQ's about their work for non-expert communities to view. In addition, despite having increased our participants' risk perceptions about induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cell research, almost all were very supportive of this type of research in Canada by the end of the survey. In other words, participants understood that this research did in fact pose some risks and learned a great deal about both the risks and benefits of iPS cell research, and still thought this research was worthwhile to pursue.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 22941397     DOI: 10.1007/s12015-012-9407-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stem Cell Rev Rep        ISSN: 2629-3277            Impact factor:   5.739


  10 in total

1.  Recruiting for representation in public deliberation on the ethics of biobanks.

Authors:  Holly Longstaff; Michael M Burgess
Journal:  Public Underst Sci       Date:  2010-03

2.  Analysis of an innovative survey platform: comparison of the public's responses to human health and salmon genomics surveys.

Authors:  Rana Ahmad; Jennifer Bailey; Peter Danielson
Journal:  Public Underst Sci       Date:  2010-03

Review 3.  Popular culture representations of science: views from the Canadian stem cell research community.

Authors:  Timothy Caulfield; Amy Zarzeczny
Journal:  Stem Cell Rev Rep       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 5.739

Review 4.  Defining moments in risk communication research: 1996-2005.

Authors:  Katherine A McComas
Journal:  J Health Commun       Date:  2006

5.  Scientists' perspectives on the ethical issues of stem cell research.

Authors:  Holly Longstaff; Catherine A Schuppli; Nina Preto; Darquise Lafrenière; Michael McDonald
Journal:  Stem Cell Rev Rep       Date:  2009-04-02       Impact factor: 5.739

6.  New advances in iPS cell research do not obviate the need for human embryonic stem cells.

Authors:  Insoo Hyun; Konrad Hochedlinger; Rudolf Jaenisch; Shinya Yamanaka
Journal:  Cell Stem Cell       Date:  2007-10-11       Impact factor: 24.633

7.  Science spin: iPS cell research in the news.

Authors:  T Caulfield; C Rachul
Journal:  Clin Pharmacol Ther       Date:  2011-05       Impact factor: 6.875

8.  Testing a structured decision approach: value-focused thinking for deliberative risk communication.

Authors:  J L Arvai; R Gregory; T L McDaniels
Journal:  Risk Anal       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 4.000

9.  Induced pluripotent stem cell lines derived from human somatic cells.

Authors:  Junying Yu; Maxim A Vodyanik; Kim Smuga-Otto; Jessica Antosiewicz-Bourget; Jennifer L Frane; Shulan Tian; Jeff Nie; Gudrun A Jonsdottir; Victor Ruotti; Ron Stewart; Igor I Slukvin; James A Thomson
Journal:  Science       Date:  2007-11-20       Impact factor: 47.728

10.  Induction of pluripotent stem cells from adult human fibroblasts by defined factors.

Authors:  Kazutoshi Takahashi; Koji Tanabe; Mari Ohnuki; Megumi Narita; Tomoko Ichisaka; Kiichiro Tomoda; Shinya Yamanaka
Journal:  Cell       Date:  2007-11-30       Impact factor: 41.582

  10 in total
  2 in total

1.  Bringing It All Together: Bedside to Bench and Back Again.

Authors:  Jeanne James; Jeffrey Robbins
Journal:  Circ Res       Date:  2015-12-04       Impact factor: 17.367

Review 2.  Stem cells in dermatology.

Authors:  Karolyn Sassi Ogliari; Daniel Marinowic; Dario Eduardo Brum; Fabrizio Loth
Journal:  An Bras Dermatol       Date:  2014 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 1.896

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.