INTRODUCTION: Stem cell and tissue engineering (SC&TE) research remain controversial. Polemics are potential hurdles for raising public funds for research and clinical implementation. In view of future applications of SC&TE in perinatal conditions, we aimed to measure the background knowledge, perceptions or beliefs on SC&TE research among clinicians and academic researchers with perinatal applications on the department's research agenda. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We polled three professional categories: general obstetrician gynecologists, perinatologists and basic or translational researchers in development and regeneration. The survey included questions on demographics, work environment, educational background, general knowledge, expectations, opinions and ethical reflections of the respondent about SC&TE. RESULTS: The response rate was 39 %. Respondents were mainly female (54 %) and under 40 years (63 %). The general background knowledge about SC&TE is low. Respondents confirm that remaining controversies still arise from the confusion that stem cell research coincides with embryo manipulation. Clinicians assume that stem cell research has reached the level of clinical implementation, and accept the risks associated of purposely harvesting fetal amniotic cells. Researchers in contrast are more cautious about both implementation and risks. CONCLUSION: Professionals in the field of perinatology may benefit of a better background knowledge and information on current SC & TE research. Though clinicians may be less aware of the current state of knowledge, they are open to clinical implementation, whereas dedicated researchers remain cautious. In view of the clinical introduction of SC & TE, purposed designed informative action should be taken and safety studies executed, hence avoid sustaining needless polemics.
INTRODUCTION: Stem cell and tissue engineering (SC&TE) research remain controversial. Polemics are potential hurdles for raising public funds for research and clinical implementation. In view of future applications of SC&TE in perinatal conditions, we aimed to measure the background knowledge, perceptions or beliefs on SC&TE research among clinicians and academic researchers with perinatal applications on the department's research agenda. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We polled three professional categories: general obstetrician gynecologists, perinatologists and basic or translational researchers in development and regeneration. The survey included questions on demographics, work environment, educational background, general knowledge, expectations, opinions and ethical reflections of the respondent about SC&TE. RESULTS: The response rate was 39 %. Respondents were mainly female (54 %) and under 40 years (63 %). The general background knowledge about SC&TE is low. Respondents confirm that remaining controversies still arise from the confusion that stem cell research coincides with embryo manipulation. Clinicians assume that stem cell research has reached the level of clinical implementation, and accept the risks associated of purposely harvesting fetal amniotic cells. Researchers in contrast are more cautious about both implementation and risks. CONCLUSION: Professionals in the field of perinatology may benefit of a better background knowledge and information on current SC & TE research. Though clinicians may be less aware of the current state of knowledge, they are open to clinical implementation, whereas dedicated researchers remain cautious. In view of the clinical introduction of SC & TE, purposed designed informative action should be taken and safety studies executed, hence avoid sustaining needless polemics.
Authors: Gregory Katz; Antonia Mills; Joan Garcia; Karen Hooper; Colin McGuckin; Alexander Platz; Paolo Rebulla; Elena Salvaterra; Alexander H Schmidt; Marta Torrabadella Journal: Transfusion Date: 2010-12-03 Impact factor: 3.157