Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stem cells are capable of generating various tissue cells which can be used for therapeutic approaches to debilitating and incurable disease. Even though many applications of stem cells are under investigation, such research has raised high hopes and promises along with warnings and ethical and religious questions in different societies. Generally, there is little concern about using non-human or adult stem cells. However, embryonic stem cell research has been confronted with questions from medical professionals, the public, religious groups, and national and international organizations. The debate is partly related to personhood and the notion of human dignity. Sources of stem cells, the moral status of human embryo, the slippery slope toward commercialisation of human life, concerns about safety, germ line intervention and the challenge of proportionality are some ethical issues. Stem cell research is a promising but controversial issue on which many religions have taken strong positions. The point at which human life begins is a pivotal challenge. Conception, primitive streak development, implantation, ensoulment and birth are specific stages in which different groups claim dignity begins in the course of human development. In this chapter, we will review the history and scientific facts of stem cells in brief; then, ethical considerations will be discussed. Our other aim is to clarify the religious debate on the issue, particularly monotheistic perspectives. Some related international and national guidelines will be reviewed in brief.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".