Article Text
Abstract
Five partly successive and partly overlapping framings have dominated the public debate about human embryonic stem cells since they first were “derived” a decade ago. Geron Corporation staged the initial framings as 1) basic research and 2) medical hope, but these two were immediately refuted and opposed by 3) bioethical concerns, voiced by influential politicians and leaders of opinion. Thereafter, the research community presented adult stem cells and therapeutic cloning as 4) techno-fix solutions supposed to bypass these ethical concerns. And in recent years, 5) institutional limitations to and hurdles within the university–industrial complex (such as patentability, misconduct and fraud) have attracted more attention. The article purifies the arguments and points out the interests and institutions behind the five framings. It also discusses their interplay and finally addresses the question of what happened to the stem cells?
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Some of the ideas in this article are discussed in more depth in Torben Hviid Nielsen, Five framings—one entity? The political ethics of human embryonic stem cells, Science Studies 2005;18:30–51.
Competing interests: None.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- The significance of induced pluripotent stem cells for basic research and clinical therapy
- Stem cells, embryos, and the environment: a context for both science and ethics
- Current Science of Regenerative Medicine with Stem Cells
- Potentiality of embryonic stem cells: an ethical problem even with alternative stem cell sources
- Regenerative medicine: stem cells and the science of monstrosity
- Why the apparent haste to clone humans?
- Is a consensus possible on stem cell research? Moral and political obstacles
- Human embryonic stem cells and respect for life
- Stem cell therapy for myocardial repair
- Sources of retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) for replacement therapy