Article Text

Download PDFPDF

A rebuttal to Akabayashi and colleagues’ criticisms of the iPSC stock project
  1. Misao Fujita1,
  2. Keiichi Tabuchi2
  1. 1 Uehiro Research Division for iPS Cell Ethics, Center for iPS Cell Research and Application (CiRA), Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan
  2. 2 Medical Applications Promoting Office, Center for iPS Cell Research and Application (CiRA), Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan
  1. Correspondence to Dr Misao Fujita, Uehiro Research Division for iPS Cell Ethics, Center for iPS Cell Research and Application (CiRA), Kyoto University, Kyoto, 606-8501, Japan; misao-fujita{at}cira.kyoto-u.ac.jp

Abstract

In the October edition of the Journal of Medical Ethics, Akabayashi and colleagues state that ’to establish a heterogeneous [induced pluripotent stem cell] iPSC bank covering roughly 80% of Japan’s population…the Japanese government decided to invest JPY110 billion (US$ 1.1 billion) over 10 years in regenerative medicine research; a quarter of this was to be allocated to the iPSC stock project'. While they claim this amount of money to be an unfair distribution of state resources, we believe their assessment is based on a misunderstanding of the facts. Similarly, other criticisms by them are based on mistaken interpretations. This article is a rebuttal to the arguments that form the basis of Akabayashi and colleagues’ five criticisms by explaining their misinterpretations.

  • stem cell research
  • distributive justice
  • resource allocation

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

View Full Text

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Footnotes

  • Contributors MF: conceptualisation, writing original draft and editing. KT: writing original draft and editing.

  • Funding Supported in part by the Uehiro Foundation on Ethics and Education.

  • Competing interests The opinions expressed in this paper are the authors’ own and do not represent those of the CiRA of Kyoto University.

  • Patient consent Not required.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Linked Articles

  • Response
    Akira Akabayashi Eisuke Nakazawa Nancy S Jecker