What are the ethical, legal, and social debates surrounding artificial womb technology? A scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ectogenesis-the development of the fetus outside the human uterus-is generally attributed to British scientist J.B.S. Haldane as early as 1924. Although efforts to develop artificial womb technology have seen limited success, a number of recent advances suggest that human clinical trials may become possible. The objective of this scoping review is to identify the ethical, legal, and social debates that have emerged regarding the future prospects of artificial womb technology. METHODS: We will use a pre-defined five-step framework to guide this scoping review. Our primary research question is: "What are the ethical, legal, and social debates surrounding AWT?" We will identify relevant peer-reviewed studies in which the full text is in English from electronic databases including Scopus, PubMed, JSTOR, Proquest, Medline, LexisNexis, Westlaw, HeinOnline, and DOAJ. We will employ a two-stage process to identify relevant articles by (1) searching for articles in databases using keywords and 2) conducting a hand search of the reference lists of all retrieved articles to find any relevant sources not indexed by these databases or keywords. Two independent reviewers will select articles by screening titles/abstracts followed by a full-text appraisal using standardized inclusion criteria. We will extract and synthesize the data and develop a narrative summary with accompanying tables and figures. The final output will adhere to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Extension for Scoping Reviews checklist. DISCUSSION: The scoping review will document evidence and gaps in the evidence of key areas of focus for academics, clinicians, scientists, legislators, and public policy decision-makers as they consider how to move forward with artificial womb technology. Given the novelty of this technology, we anticipate that we will identify significant gaps that may inform future research and promote a proactive approach to the modernization of legislation, regulatory frameworks, and existing policies and guidelines that may govern this technology. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: We have registered this scoping review protocol with OSF Registries: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/D8Q96 .
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 | 0.241 | 0.168 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.054 | 0.018 |
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".