IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/tefoso/v109y2016icp76-86.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The large grey area between ‘bona fide’ and ‘rogue’ stem cell interventions — Ethical acceptability and the need to include local variability

Author

Listed:
  • Sleeboom-Faulkner, Margaret Elizabeth

Abstract

This article aims to put into perspective the binary opposition between ‘scientific’ clinical research trials and ‘rogue’ experimental stem cell therapies, and to show why the ethics criteria used by the dominant science community are not suitable for distinguishing between adequate and inadequate treatments. By focusing on the grey area between clinical stem cell trials and stem cell experimentation, the experimental space where patients, medical professionals and life scientists negotiate for diverging reasons and aims, I show why idealised notions of ethics are not feasible for many stem cell scientists in low- and middle-income countries.

Suggested Citation

  • Sleeboom-Faulkner, Margaret Elizabeth, 2016. "The large grey area between ‘bona fide’ and ‘rogue’ stem cell interventions — Ethical acceptability and the need to include local variability," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 76-86.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:109:y:2016:i:c:p:76-86
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2016.04.023
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162516300531
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.04.023?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.

    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:tefoso:v:109:y:2016:i:c:p:76-86. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00401625 .

    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.