MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2124824215

Oversight of Stem Cell Research in Canada: Protecting the Rights, Health, and Safety of Embryo Donors

2008· article· en· W2124824215 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
C. M. S. Cohen, Michael E. Enzle, Bernard M. Dickens, Bruce P. Brandhorst, Teren Clark, Catherine Clute, Diana Dunstan, Donald Evans, Raymond Lambert, Sylvie Langlois, Arthur Leader, Cheryl M. G. Robertson

Bibliographic record

VenueDigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBiomedical Ethics and Regulation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMandatePolitical scienceResearch ethicsInduced pluripotent stem cellPublic administrationStem cellPublic relationsEngineering ethicsLawEmbryonic stem cellBiologyEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Stem cell research has come to the fore of scientific and public interest in the past decade, bearing the promise of providing treatments for many serious diseases and conditions. (1) Yet the pursuit of this research has raised significant issues of public policy and ethics in Canada and elsewhere. Recent policy discussion centers on developing ways of overseeing stem cell research that are consistent with the regulation of other forms of scientific research and yet take into account distinctive aspects of this research. (2) Ethical issues revolve around the derivation, study and research use of human pluripotent stem cells within the bounds of the ethical requirements of the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (TCPS). (3) In 2002, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) developed guidelines to address the oversight and associated ethical issues raised by stem cell research, the Human Pluripotent Stem Cell Research Guidelines (the Guidelines). (4) It also established the Stem Cell Oversight Committee (SCOC) to ensure that all pluripotent stem cell research carried out at institutions receiving funding from the Tri-Council Agencies--and, on a voluntary basis, at other public or private granting agencies in Canada or within the private sector--is in accordance with the Guidelines. (5) The SCOC consists of a chair and a minimum of 11 additional members chosen by the CIHR Governing Council on advice from the Nominating Committee. (6) It is structured to be: a heterogeneous group of individuals with a range of backgrounds and disciplines relevant to the mandate of the Committee. Technical experts will provide the Committee access to the latest scientific and ethical information, and representatives from the general public will represent the views and values of Canadians potentially affected by the new technologies. (7) Members of the SCOC include professionals in stem cell biology and therapeutics; developmental biology or embryology; health care (in vitro fertilization [IVF] specialist); ethics; law; international stem cell research policy; and the social sciences. Persons from the voluntary health sector, IVF patients, and members of the general public who have a general interest in health research (8) and who are not advocates for any specific interest group are also included. (9) Members of the SCOC are not employees of CIHR and do not receive an honorarium or remuneration of any kind from CIHR. The SCOC was mandated to provide periodic updating and proposals for revision of the Guidelines to the CIHR Governing Council and has done so twice, once in 2005 (10) and again in 2006. (11) Important questions have recently been raised by several commentators about modifications made in the Guidelines before and after their publication. Others have questioned certain requirements of the Guidelines that they believe are too restrictive. In this article, those who were members of the SCOC from 2003 to 2006 trace certain clarifications of the Guidelines made during that period and discuss the rationale for them in light of these concerns. They also address criticisms made of the substance of the Guidelines. The thrust of this article is to exhibit that the paramount consideration underlying the development of the Guidelines has been the need to protect the rights, health, and safety of those who donate embryos for human pluripotent stem cell research. I. Major Provisions of the CIHR Guidelines for the Oversight of Stem Cell Research The Guidelines permit research to study human embryonic stem cell lines derived from human embryos created but no longer required for reproductive purposes, as well as preexisting human embryonic stem cell lines. (12) They mandate that persons for whom the embryos were created, and third parties who have donated gametes for the development of embryos, must have given free and informed consent for the research use of such spare embryos. …

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.042
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.048
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.985
Threshold uncertainty score0.814

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0420.048
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0150.013
Scholarly communication0.0120.002
Open science0.0060.005
Research integrity0.0070.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.195 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library)Same topicBiomedical Ethics and RegulationFrench-language works237,207