Literature DB >> 23695820

The impact of commercialisation on public perceptions of stem cell research: exploring differences across the use of induced pluripotent cells, human and animal embryos.

Christine R Critchley1, Gordana Bruce, Matthew Farrugia.   

Abstract

The development of pluripotent cells that enable stem cell research (SCR) without destroying human embryos is now a leading priority for science. Public and political controversies associated with human embryonic SCR experienced in the recent past should be alleviated if scientists no longer need to harvest cells from human embryos. This research suggests however additional issues needing attention in order to gain the public's trust and support: the use of mouse embryos and the commercialisation of research. Using a representative sample of 2,800 Australians, and an experimental telephone survey design, this research compared levels and predictors of public support for stem cell research across three cell source conditions: human embryo (HE), mouse embryo (ME) and induced pluripotent cells (iPSCs). The results revealed that the public were significantly more likely to support research using iPSCs than HE and ME cells and public compared to private research (regardless of the cell source). There was no significant difference in support for HE compared to ME research, but the former was viewed as more likely to lead to accessible health care benefits and to be associated with more trustworthy scientists. The results of a multimediation structural equation model showed that the primary reason support for SCR significantly dropped in a private compared to public context (i.e., the commercialisation effect) was because public scientists were trusted more than private scientists. This effect was consistent across all three SCR materials, suggesting that the use of mouse embryos or even iPSCs will not reduce the publics' concern with commercialised science. The implications these results have for public acceptance of stem cell and animal research are discussed in relation to possible solutions such as increasing public awareness of the regulation of animal research and benefit sharing.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23695820     DOI: 10.1007/s12015-013-9445-4

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


  21 in total

1.  Confronting conflict of interest in research organisations: time for national action.

Authors:  M B Van Der Weyden
Journal:  Med J Aust       Date:  2001-10-15       Impact factor: 7.738

2.  Biotechnology and the European public.

Authors:  G Gaskell; N Allum; M Bauer; J Durant; A Allansdottir; H Bonfadelli; D Boy; S de Cheveigné; B Fjaestad; J M Gutteling; J Hampel; E Jelsøe; J C Jesuino; M Kohring; N Kronberger; C Midden; T H Nielsen; A Przestalski; T Rusanen; G Sakellaris; H Torgersen; T Twardowski; W Wagner
Journal:  Nat Biotechnol       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 54.908

3.  Delivering on the promise of human stem-cell research. What are the real barriers?

Authors:  Melissa Little; Wayne Hall; Amy Orlandi
Journal:  EMBO Rep       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 8.807

4.  Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models.

Authors:  Kristopher J Preacher; Andrew F Hayes
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2008-08

5.  Public perceptions of animal experimentation across Europe.

Authors:  Fabienne Crettaz von Roten
Journal:  Public Underst Sci       Date:  2012-02-15

Review 6.  Promising new sources for pluripotent stem cells.

Authors:  Christian Leeb; Marcin Jurga; Colin McGuckin; Richard Moriggl; Lukas Kenner
Journal:  Stem Cell Rev Rep       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 5.739

7.  Free the animals? Investigating attitudes toward animal testing in Britain and the United States.

Authors:  Viren Swami; Adrian Furnham; Andrew N Christopher
Journal:  Scand J Psychol       Date:  2008-06

8.  Benefit sharing and biobanking in Australia.

Authors:  Dianne Nicol; Christine Critchley
Journal:  Public Underst Sci       Date:  2011-04-21

9.  Induction of pluripotent stem cells from mouse embryonic and adult fibroblast cultures by defined factors.

Authors:  Kazutoshi Takahashi; Shinya Yamanaka
Journal:  Cell       Date:  2006-08-10       Impact factor: 41.582

Review 10.  Genetic engineering of a mouse: Dr. Frank Ruddle and somatic cell genetics.

Authors:  Dennis Jones
Journal:  Yale J Biol Med       Date:  2011-06
View more
  10 in total

1.  Commercialization and stem cell research: a review of emerging issues.

Authors:  Sarah Burningham; Adam Ollenberger; Timothy Caulfield
Journal:  Stem Cells Dev       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 3.272

Review 2.  Stem cells for spine surgery.

Authors:  Joshua Schroeder; Janina Kueper; Kaplan Leon; Meir Liebergall
Journal:  World J Stem Cells       Date:  2015-01-26       Impact factor: 5.326

3.  Citizen expectations of 'academic entrepreneurship' in health research: public science, practical benefit.

Authors:  Fiona A Miller; Michael Painter-Main; Renata Axler; Pascale Lehoux; Mita Giacomini; Barbara Slater
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2014-05-14       Impact factor: 3.377

Review 4.  Cell-based therapeutic strategies for replacement and preservation in retinal degenerative diseases.

Authors:  Melissa K Jones; Bin Lu; Sergey Girman; Shaomei Wang
Journal:  Prog Retin Eye Res       Date:  2017-01-19       Impact factor: 21.198

5.  Encouraging Participation And Transparency In Biobank Research.

Authors:  Kayte Spector-Bagdady; Raymond G De Vries; Michele G Gornick; Andrew G Shuman; Sharon Kardia; Jodyn Platt
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2018-08       Impact factor: 6.301

Review 6.  The commercialization of university-based research: Balancing risks and benefits.

Authors:  Timothy Caulfield; Ubaka Ogbogu
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2015-10-14       Impact factor: 2.652

Review 7.  Stem cell preservation for regenerative therapies: ethical and governance considerations for the health care sector.

Authors:  Zubin Master; Aidan P Crowley; Cambray Smith; Dennis Wigle; Andre Terzic; Richard R Sharp
Journal:  NPJ Regen Med       Date:  2020-12-01

8.  Translation and validation of the greek version of a questionnaire measuring patient views on participation in clinical trials.

Authors:  Dimitrios Karampatakis; Angeliki Kakavouti-Doudos; Panagiotis Oikonomidis; Polychronis Voultsos
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2021-10-22       Impact factor: 2.655

9.  Factors influencing the willingness to participate in medical research: a nationwide survey in Taiwan.

Authors:  Hung-En Liu; Ming-Chieh Li
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2018-05-31       Impact factor: 2.984

10.  Predicting Public Attitudes Toward Gene Editing of Germlines: The Impact of Moral and Hereditary Concern in Human and Animal Applications.

Authors:  Christine Critchley; Dianne Nicol; Gordana Bruce; Jarrod Walshe; Tamara Treleaven; Bernard Tuch
Journal:  Front Genet       Date:  2019-01-09       Impact factor: 4.599

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.