Does a Patient Have a Constitutional Right to the Freedom of Medical Research? Regenerative Medicine and Therapeutic Cloning Research in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Constitutional arguments regarding the freedom of scientific research often focus on the freedom of speech of researchers, with much less attention to the potential constitutional claims that could be made on behalf of patients who may one day benefit from the fruits of that research. This article explores whether patients have a claim to unimpeded medical research under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, using as a case study the Canadian federal prohibition on human cloning – including “therapeutic cloning” (or the derivation of stem cells that are immunologically compatible with the recipient patient for use in regenerative medicine). The conclusion drawn in this case study is that a constitutional claim can be made in this context and ought to be available as an argument more broadly, although the speculativeness of the eventual benefits of therapeutic cloning research is a significant weakness. The concern over harm to women due to the demand for human oocytes for research and eventual therapy is a credible and compelling one that would justify some restrictions on the research under section 1 of the Charter. Nonetheless, the prohibition of all therapeutic cloning research is vulnerable to the argument that it is overbroad in that it forecloses lines of therapeutic cloning research that do not endanger women.
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 | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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".