MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W317613284

Betwixt and between human stem cell guidelines and legislation.

2002· article· en· W317613284 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Françoise Βaylis

Notice bibliographique

RevuePubMed · 2002
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
ThématiquePluripotent Stem Cells Research
Établissements canadiensDalhousie University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésLegislationStem cellSomatic cell nuclear transferGovernment (linguistics)Embryonic stem cellReproductive technologyBiologyPolitical scienceLawBlastocystEmbryoGenetics
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Introduction On March 4, 2002, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research released its guidelines Human Pluripotent Stem Cell Research: Guidelinesfor CIHR-Funded Research. (1) The CIHR is Canada's major federal funding agency for health research and the new research guidelines (in tandem with the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (2) set out the conditions under which CIHR will fund human stem cell The stem cell guidelines also carefully outline those types of research that are not eligible for CIHR funding. In very general terms, research to derive and study human stem cell lines from embryos, fetal tissue, amniotic fluid, the umbilical cord, placenta, and other body tissues (either from persons or cadavers) is eligible for CIHR funding. Research not eligible for CIHR funding includes research involving the creation of human embryos for research purposes, the use of somatic cell nuclear transfer to develop stem cell lines, the mixing of human or non-human stem cells wit h a human embryo or fetus, and the mixing of human stem cells with a non-human embryo or fetus. Two months later, on May 9, 2002, the federal government released Bill C-56, An Act respecting assisted human reproduction. (3) The proposed legislation and regulatory framework is the government's most recent attempt to regulate various aspects of infertility treatment. Since many of the new reproductive technologies involve the creation and manipulation of in vitro human embryos, the bill necessarily includes a number of provisions that apply directly to embryo These provisions overlap with some of the CIHR guidelines for stem cell Among these provisions is the requirement that embryo research only be permitted on in vitro embryos discarded by infertility clinics, and only when the licensing Agency is satisfied that the use is necessary for the purpose of the proposed research. (4) Some believe these proposed legislative requirements are a significant barrier to promising embryo research, while others believe this limit to be morally required. More recently, on September 16, 2002 Parliament was prorogued. With the prorogation of Parliament, all bills on the Order Paper (i.e., bills under consideration that have not received Royal Assent) are considered dead. (5) This included Bill C-56. Significantly, this is not the first time the federal government has tried to introduce comprehensive legislation on assisted human reproduction only to have the bill die on the Order Paper. In 1996, the government introduced Bill C47, the Human Reproductive and Genetic Technologies Act. (6) This bill also died on the Order Paper in the spring of 1997 when a federal election was called before the legislative process was complete. Fortunately, however, Bill C-S6 has not shared the same fate as Bill C-47. On October 9, 2002, Bill C-S6 was introduced in the House of Commons and reinstated at the same stage in the legislative process, as prior to prorogation. (7) The reinstatement of the bill reflects the fact that much has changed since 1997 when the previous bill died . For many it is now imperative that some kind of regulatory framework for infertility treatment and human embryo research be put in place. Among the significant changes that have occurred since the original bill on reproductive technologies died on the Order Paper is the growing interest in stem cell research, on the part of both scientists and the general public. In November 1998, there were three dramatic announcements of successful privately-funded research in the United States on the derivation of human stem cells. James Thomson and colleagues announced that they had isolated human embryonic stem cells from embryos remaining after infertility treatment. (8) John Gearhart and colleagues announced that they had isolated human embryonic germ cells using aborted fetal tissue. (9) And finally, Advanced Cell Technology disclosed that it had created a hybrid embryo by fusing human nuclei with enucleated cow oocytes, and that cells resembling human embryonic stem cells had been isolated. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,006
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesÉtudes des sciences et des technologies
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Théorique ou conceptuel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,996
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,283

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0060,012
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,001
Bibliométrie0,0020,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0040,003
Communication savante0,0060,004
Science ouverte0,0020,004
Intégrité de la recherche0,0130,008
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0850,056

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,076
Tête enseignante GPT0,274
Écart entre enseignants0,198 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeThéorique ou conceptuel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations4
Publié2002
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuePubMedMême sujetPluripotent Stem Cells ResearchTravaux en français237 207