Embryonic Stem Cell Research: The State of the Union of "Those Who Create the Lines" and "Those Who Draw the Lines"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent events have ostensibly removed the primacy of the United States in embryonic stem (ES) cell research. George Walker Bush was the first U.S. President to allow federal funding of ES cell research under guidelines influenced by statements from pre-eminent stem cell scientists. The guidelines delimiting federal funding of ES cell research put forth by President Bush were endorsed by the public, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and by, at least by silent assent, the scientific community. At the time, the President was assured by eminent scientists and advisors that ES cells were immortal and stable, many viable lines existed, and they could be used for years for research and therapy. These premises have now been publicly challenged and individual states and other countries have announced plans to proceed with research that would be considered outside of the President's guidelines. All have thus far discovered that removal of U.S. federal support and oversight not only blunts science, but also abdicates responsible stewardship of the scientific process as well as the resulting technology. So while California, Canada, New Jersey, and Britain engage in ES research, suddenly the process stops; and no advances are made. Below I present a historical account of the seminal events and statements of legislators and ES cell researchers leading to and from that decision. The Journal welcomes our readers' comments on the issue at hand.
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 | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.032 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".