The role of an expert discussion panel on shaping the
views of the undergraduate in health sciences on the
use of stem cells and pre-implantation embryos
Loading...
Official URL
Full text at PDC
Publication date
2020
Advisors (or tutors)
Editors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Elsevier
Citations
Exportar
Citation
1. Merton RK. Teoría y estructuras sociales Fondo de Cultura
Económica. México, DF; 1964.
2. Nelkin D. God talk: confusion between science and religion posthumous essay. Sci Technol Hum Values. 2004;29:139---52.
3. Yamanaka S. Risk taking is in his genes. In: Fackler M, editor. December 11, 2007 ed. New York: The New York Times Company; 2007.
4. Evans MS. Supporting science reasons, restrictions, and the role of religion. Sci Commun. 2012;34:334---62.
5. Maehle A-H. Ambiguous cells: the emergence of the stem cell concept in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Notes Rec R Soc. 2011;65:359---78.
6. Takahashi K, Yamanaka S. Induction of pluripotent stem cells from mouse embryonic and adult fibroblast cultures by defined factors. Cell. 2006;126:663---76.
7. Hussein SM, Puri MC, Tonge PD, Benevento M, Corso AJ, Clancy JL, et al. Genome-wide characterization of the routes to pluripotency. Nature. 2014;516:198---206.
8. Hogle LF. Contemporary issues in regenerative medicine
research ethics and governance: an overview. In: Hogle LF, editor. Regenerative medicine ethics. New York: Springer; 2014. p.3---28.
9. Ferrer MC, Pastor L. Use of the term ‘‘pre-embryo’’ in the biomedical literature from its origin to the present. Cuadernos de bioetica: revista oficial de la Asociacion Espanola de Bioetica y Etica Medica. 2017;28:111---24.
10. Warnock M. Report of the Committee of Inquiry Into Human
Fertilisation and Embryology, Cmnd. 9314. London: Department
of Health & Social Security, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office
(HMSO); 1984.
11. Jones DG, Telfer B. Before I was an embryo, I was a pre-embryo: or was I? Bioethics. 1995;9:32---49.
12. McLaren A. Prelude to embryogenesis. In: Bock G, O’Connor M, editors. Human embryo research yes or no? London: Tavistock Publications; 1986. p. 5---32.
13. Caceda R, James GA, Ely TD, Snarey J, Kilts CD. Mode of
effective connectivity within a putative neural network differentiates moral cognitions related to care and justice ethics. PLoS ONE. 2011;6:e14730.
14. Barker RA, de Beaufort I. Scientific and ethical issues related to stem cell research and interventions in neurodegenerative disorders of the brain. Prog Neurobiol. 2013;110:63---73.
15. Shrivastava M, Behari M. Neuroethics: a moral approach towards neuroscience research. Arch Neurosci. 2015;2.
16. Buller T. The future of neuroethics research and training. Debates about neuroethics. Springer; 2017. p. 183---200.
17. Haimes E, Williams R. The making of a moral economy: women’s views of monetary transactions in an ‘egg sharing for research’ scheme. Br J Sociol. 2017.
18. Caravan O. American views on stem cell research in the wake of the dead of Ronald Reagan. Princeton, New Jersey: Opinion Research Corporation International; 2004. Contract No.: STUDY 713248.
19. Lacadena-Calero JR. Actitud social hacia la investigación con células troncales embrionarias en la Unión Europea. Revista de Bioética Latinoamericana. 2009;2.
20. Einsiedel E, Premji S, Geransar R, Orton NC, Thavaratnam T, Bennett LK. Diversity in public views toward stem cell sources and policies. Stem Cell Rev Rep. 2009;5:102---7.
21. Borgelt EL, Dharamsi S, Scott CT. Dear student: stem cell scientists’ advice to the next generation. Cell Stem Cell. 2013;12:652---5.
22. Samorinha C, Pereira M, Machado H, Figueiredo B, Silva S. Factors associated with the donation and non-donation of
embryos for research: a systematic review. Hum Reprod Update. 2014;20:641---55.
23. Kool E, Bos A, van der Graaf R, Fauser B, Bredenoord A. Ethics of oocyte banking for third-party assisted reproduction: a systematic review. Hum Reprod Update. 2018.
24. Critchley CR. Public opinion and trust in scientists: the role of the research context, and the perceived motivation of stem cell researchers. Public Understand Sci. 2008;17:309---27.
25. Nisbet MC. The competition for worldviews: values, information, and public support for stem cell research. Int J Public Opin Res. 2005;17:90---112.
26. Nisbet MC, Goidel RK. Understanding citizen perceptions of science controversy: bridging the ethnographic----survey research divide. Public Understand Sci. 2007;16:421---40.
27. Lacadena-Calero JR. La década prodigiosa de las células
troncales (1998---2008) y la medecina regeneraitva. Moralia.
2008;31:65---95.
28. Stewart CO, Dickerson DL, Hotchkiss R. Beliefs about science and news frames in audience evaluations of embryonic and adult stem cell research. Sci Commun. 2009;30:427---52.
29. Johnson DR, Scheitle CP, Ecklund EH. Individual religiosity and orientation towards science: reformulating relationships. Sociol Sci. 2015;2:106---24.
30. Stewart CO. The influence of news frames and science
background on attributions about embryonic and adult stem
cell research frames as Heuristic/Biasing Cues. Sci Commun.
2013;35:86---114.
31. Kennedy R. In-class debates: fertile ground for active learning and the cultivation of critical thinking and oral communication skills. Int J Teach Learn High Educ. 2007;19:183---90.
32. Koklanaris N, MacKenzie AP, Fino ME, Arslan AA, Seubert DE. Debate preparation/participation: an active, effective learning tool. Teach Learn Med. 2008;20:235---8.
33. Arráez-Aybar LA, Nú˜nez-Cortés JM, Carabantes-Alarcón D,
Lozano-Fernández R, Iglesias-Peinado I, Palacios-Alaiz E, et al. Adquisición de competencias transversales en alumnos de pregrado de Ciencias de la Salud en la Universidad Complutense: una experiencia positiva. Educ Med. 2008;11:169---77.
34. Lyngved R. Learning about cloning: developing student knowledge and interest through an interactive, context-based
approach. Nordic Stud Sci Educ. 2012;5:142---57.
35. Nguyen VQ, Hirsch MA. Use of a policy debate to teach residents about health care reform. J Grad Med Educ. 2011;3:376---8.
36. Nisly SA, Kingdon LK, Janzen KM, Dy-Boarman EA. Using debates to mimic clinical discussion in experiential education. Innov Pharmacy. 2017;8:9.
37. Calman K. Spirituality and medical education. Med Educ.
2008;42:123---5.
38. Schwab JJ. The teaching of science as enquiry. In: Schwab JJ, Brandwein PF, editors. The teaching of science. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press; 1962. p.3---103.
39. Von Aufschnaiter C, Erduran S, Osborne J, Simon S. Arguing to learn and learning to argue: case studies of how students’ argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge. J Res Sci Teach. 2008;45:101---31.
Abstract
Introduction: There are four objectives to this paper: (1) To determine whether undergraduates enrolled in Health-Sciences studies agree with the use of human stem cells for medical research, treatment and genetic uses. (2) Whether they would consider the use of pre-implantationembryos for medical research. (3) Whether attitudes toward the previous two issues are linked to gender, field of study, transcendental/spiritual convictions and political biases. (4) A panel of discussion will modify their opinion.
Results: The present study shows that, before attending a discussion panel session, media was the main source of information that the students had on the surveyed topics. A discussion panel was useful for clarifying respondents’ opinions on the explored items. Significantly, the discussion panel had an influence on those respondents who did not have a formed opinion on the explored items.
Conclusions: A discussion panel is a convenient, but limited tool, in the shaping of undergraduate opinions on ethically controversial scientific matters.