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
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.