Canadian Psychiatrists Urged to Voice Views on Cloning, Stem Cell Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Back to table of contents Previous article Next article Clinical & Research NewsFull AccessCanadian Psychiatrists Urged to Voice Views on Cloning, Stem Cell ResearchJoan Arehart-TreichelJoan Arehart-TreichelPublished Online:20 Dec 2002https://doi.org/10.1176/pn.37.24.0002A bill to regulate human stem cell research and ban human cloning was introduced into the Canadian Parliament in May. As things look now, it will become law during the next several months.Timothy Caulfield: "I hope all of you will become engaged in this important debate."This news comes from Timothy Caulfield, an associate professor of law at the University of Alberta in Edmonton and research director of the university's Health Law Institute. He spoke at the annual meeting of the Canadian Psychiatric Association in November in Banff, Alberta.If Canadian psychiatrists hold views on human stem cell research and human cloning, they should write their legislators about them, and soon, Caulfield said.Individual letters from physicians carry considerable weight with legislators, he stressed. "I hope all of you will become engaged in this important debate," he said.Caulfield said that he finds parts of the bill reasonable—for instance, it does not ban human stem cell research completely. However, he finds some other aspects of the bill most troubling. For example, he believes that it is based on questionable moral positions and has some quirky provisions—say, it would allow a human embryonic stem cell to be placed in a mouse embryo, but a mouse embryonic stem cell could not to be placed in a human embryo.He also holds that there are some critical ethical questions surrounding the research that the bill does not address and gave an example: "Because each cell in our bodies could potentially be cloned into a human being, are we walking human embryos?"But what disturbs Caulfield most about the bill, he implied, is that it would criminalize such research and, once enacted into law, would be difficult to change.Nonetheless, he does not believe that scientists should be able to engage in such research totally unfettered, but the restrictions should consist of government regulations, not statutory prohibitions, he opined. ▪ ISSUES NewArchived
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
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 teacher head, 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".