IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v98y2013icp345-350.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Human embryonic stem cell science and policy: The case of Iran

Author

Listed:
  • Saniei, Mansooreh

Abstract

The paper is based on a large qualitative study of ethics, policy and regulation of human embryonic stem cell (hESC) science in Iran. This case study in five academic research centres used semi-structured interviews to examine in depth the views of stem cell scientists, embryologists and ethics committee members on hESC research policy in this Shia Muslim country. Although Iran's policy approach has been considered ‘intermediate’, what is described here seems to be a ‘more flexible’ policy on hESC science. This article describes three arguments to explain why Iran has shaped such a policy. These are: (1) a flexibility of the Shia tradition has allowed for hESC science; (2) permissive policy related to other fields of biomedicine, such as new assisted reproductive technologies, facilitated approval of hESC research; and (3) a lack of public debate of bioscience in Iran influences how its hESC research policy is perceived. Based on the empirical data, this paper then expands and refines the conceptual bioethical basis for the co-production of science, policy, and society in Iran. The notion of co-production implies that scientists, policy-makers, and sometimes other societal actors cooperate in the exchange, production, and application of knowledge to make science policy.

Suggested Citation

  • Saniei, Mansooreh, 2013. "Human embryonic stem cell science and policy: The case of Iran," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 345-350.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:98:y:2013:i:c:p:345-350
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.10.028
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953613005765
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.10.028?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Parry, Sarah, 2006. "(Re)constructing embryos in stem cell research: Exploring the meaning of embryos for people involved in fertility treatments," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(10), pages 2349-2359, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Pfeffer, Naomi, 2008. "What British women say matters to them about donating an aborted fetus to stem cell research: A focus group study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 66(12), pages 2544-2554, June.
    2. Waldby, Catherine & Kerridge, Ian & Boulos, Margaret & Carroll, Katherine, 2013. "From altruism to monetisation: Australian women's ideas about money, ethics and research eggs," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 34-42.
    3. Roberts, Celia & Throsby, Karen, 2008. "Paid to share: IVF patients, eggs and stem cell research," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 159-169, January.
    4. Kent, Julie, 2008. "The fetal tissue economy: From the abortion clinic to the stem cell laboratory," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 67(11), pages 1747-1756, December.
    5. Ehrich, Kathryn & Williams, Clare & Farsides, Bobbie, 2010. "Fresh or frozen? Classifying 'spare' embryos for donation to human embryonic stem cell research," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 71(12), pages 2204-2211, December.
    6. Delaunay, Catarina & Gouveia, Luís & Santos, Mário JDS. & Morais, Rita, 2023. "(De)Bonding with embryos: The emotional choreographies of Portuguese IVF patients," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 321(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:98:y:2013:i:c:p:345-350. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.