IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v153y2016icp240-249.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing national home-keeping and the regulation of translational stem cell applications: An international perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Sleeboom-Faulkner, Margaret
  • Chekar, Choon Key
  • Faulkner, Alex
  • Heitmeyer, Carolyn
  • Marouda, Marina
  • Rosemann, Achim
  • Chaisinthop, Nattaka
  • Chang, Hung-Chieh (Jessica)
  • Ely, Adrian
  • Kato, Masae
  • Patra, Prasanna K.
  • Su, Yeyang
  • Sui, Suli
  • Suzuki, Wakana
  • Zhang, Xinqing

Abstract

A very large grey area exists between translational stem cell research and applications that comply with the ideals of randomised control trials and good laboratory and clinical practice and what is often referred to as snake-oil trade. We identify a discrepancy between international research and ethics regulation and the ways in which regulatory instruments in the stem cell field are developed in practice. We examine this discrepancy using the notion of ‘national home-keeping’, referring to the way governments articulate international standards and regulation with conflicting demands on local players at home.

Suggested Citation

  • Sleeboom-Faulkner, Margaret & Chekar, Choon Key & Faulkner, Alex & Heitmeyer, Carolyn & Marouda, Marina & Rosemann, Achim & Chaisinthop, Nattaka & Chang, Hung-Chieh (Jessica) & Ely, Adrian & Kato, Mas, 2016. "Comparing national home-keeping and the regulation of translational stem cell applications: An international perspective," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 240-249.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:153:y:2016:i:c:p:240-249
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.01.047
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027795361630048X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.01.047?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. Rosemann, Achim, 2014. "Standardization as situation-specific achievement: Regulatory diversity and the production of value in intercontinental collaborations in stem cell medicine," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 72-80.
    2. Brian Salter & Ren-Zong Qiu, 2009. "Bioethical governance and basic stem cell science: China and the global biomedicine economy," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 36(1), pages 47-59, February.
    3. Cambrosio, Alberto & Keating, Peter & Schlich, Thomas & Weisz, George, 2006. "Regulatory objectivity and the generation and management of evidence in medicine," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 189-199, July.
    4. Salter, Brian & Zhou, Yinhua & Datta, Saheli, 2015. "Hegemony in the marketplace of biomedical innovation: Consumer demand and stem cell science," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 156-163.
    5. Wahlberg, Ayo & Rehmann-Sutter, Christoph & Sleeboom-Faulkner, Margaret & Lu, Guangxiu & Döring, Ole & Cong, Yali & Laska-Formejster, Alicja & He, Jing & Chen, Haidan & Gottweis, Herbert & Rose, Nikol, 2013. "From global bioethics to ethical governance of biomedical research collaborations," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 293-300.
    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. Geltzer, Anna, 2009. "When the standards aren't standard: Evidence-based medicine in the Russian context," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 526-532, February.
    2. repec:thr:techub:10018:y:2021:i:1:p:619-624 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Lawton, Julia & Jenkins, Nicholas & Darbyshire, Julie & Farmer, Andrew & Holman, Rury & Hallowell, Nina, 2012. "Understanding the outcomes of multi-centre clinical trials: A qualitative study of health professional experiences and views," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 74(4), pages 574-581.
    4. Taipale, Jaakko & Hautamäki, Lotta, 2021. "Clinical practice guidelines in courts’ representation of medical evidence and testimony," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 275(C).
    5. Gutin, Iliya, 2022. "Not ‘putting a name to it’: Managing uncertainty in the diagnosis of childhood obesity," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 294(C).
    6. Bourgain, Catherine & Pourtau, Lionel & Mazouni, Chafika & Bungener, Martine & Bonastre, et Julia, 2020. "Imperfect biomarkers for adjuvant chemotherapy in early stage breast cancer with good prognosis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).
    7. Stella Pachidi & Hans Berends & Samer Faraj & Marleen Huysman, 2021. "Make Way for the Algorithms: Symbolic Actions and Change in a Regime of Knowing," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(1), pages 18-41, January.
    8. Knaapen, Loes & Cazeneuve, Hervé & Cambrosio, Alberto & Castel, Patrick & Fervers, Beatrice, 2010. "Pragmatic evidence and textual arrangements: A case study of French clinical cancer guidelines," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 71(4), pages 685-692, August.
    9. Paraskevi Pegiou & Antonia Kountoura & Stavros Emmanouil & Efthymios Ziagkas, 2021. "Scientific research, current guidelines in the European Union and ethical issues," Technium Social Sciences Journal, Technium Science, vol. 18(1), pages 619-624, April.
    10. Bourret, Pascale & Keating, Peter & Cambrosio, Alberto, 2011. "Regulating diagnosis in post-genomic medicine: Re-aligning clinical judgment?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(6), pages 816-824, September.
    11. Keshet, Yael & Popper-Giveon, Ariela, 2017. "Neutrality in medicine and health professionals from ethnic minority groups: The case of Arab health professionals in Israel," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 174(C), pages 35-42.
    12. Markus M. Bugge & Teis Hansen & Antje Klitkou, 2016. "What Is the Bioeconomy? A Review of the Literature," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(7), pages 1-22, July.
    13. Vololona Rabeharisoa, 2013. "Evidence-based activism: Patients’ organisations, users’ and activist’s groups in knowledge society," CSI Working Papers Series 033, Centre de Sociologie de l'Innovation (CSI), Mines ParisTech.
    14. Rosemann, Achim, 2014. "Standardization as situation-specific achievement: Regulatory diversity and the production of value in intercontinental collaborations in stem cell medicine," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 72-80.
    15. repec:oup:scippl:v:45:y:2018:i:3:p:416-427. is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Ducey, Ariel & Donoso, Claudia & Ross, Sue & Robert, Magali, 2020. "From anatomy to patient experience in pelvic floor surgery: Mindlines, evidence, responsibility, and transvaginal mesh," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 260(C).
    17. Carr, E. Summerson & Obertino-Norwood, Hannah, 2022. "Legitimizing evidence: The trans-institutional life of evidence-based practice," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 310(C).
    18. Llopis, Oscar & D'Este, Pablo & Díaz-Faes, Adrián A., 2021. "Connecting others: Does a tertius iungens orientation shape the relationship between research networks and innovation?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(4).
    19. Moreira, Tiago, 2011. "Health care rationing in an age of uncertainty: A conceptual model," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(8), pages 1333-1341, April.

    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:153:y:2016:i:c:p:240-249. 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.