Dataset Information

Transparency in controversial research: A review of human embryo research publication ethical disclosure statements.

ABSTRACT: In 2021, the International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR) released updated guidelines that included human embryo research guidance. Requiring ethics statements in publications using human embryos is one way to verify adherence to these guidelines. A review of top-tier biomedical journal requirements identified only one publisher that requires a human embryo statement. A review of articles using human embryos from top-tier biomedical journals found that all contain some form of ethics statement, but they differ in content and location. Requiring ethics statements with specific elements could improve transparency and adherence to research guidelines.

SUBMITTER: Venkatesh A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10828690 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Transparency in controversial research: A review of human embryo research publication ethical disclosure statements.

Venkatesh Akshaya A Iltis Ana S AS Matthews Kirstin R W KRW

Stem cell reports 20231221 1

In 2021, the International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR) released updated guidelines that included human embryo research guidance. Requiring ethics statements in publications using human embryos is one way to verify adherence to these guidelines. A review of top-tier biomedical journal requirements identified only one publisher that requires a human embryo statement. A review of articles using human embryos from top-tier biomedical journals found that all contain some form of ethics sta ...[more]

PMID: 38134926

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe burgeoning field of biomedical research involving the mixture of human and animal materials has attracted significant ethical controversy. Due to the many dimensions of potential ethical conflict involved in this type of research, and the wide variety of research projects under discussion, it is difficult to obtain an overview of the ethical debate. This paper attempts to remedy this by providing a systematic review of ethical reasons in academic publications on human-animal chimera research.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of the ethical literature concerning human-animal chimeras based on the research question: "What ethical reasons have been given for or against conducting human-animal chimera research, and how have these reasons been treated in the ongoing debate?" Our search extends until the end of the year 2017, including MEDLINE, Embase, PhilPapers and EthxWeb databases, restricted to peer-reviewed journal publications in English. Papers containing ethical reasons were analyzed, and the reasons were coded according to whether they were endorsed, mentioned or rejected.ResultsFour hundred thirty-one articles were retrieved by our search, and 88 were ultimately included and analyzed. Within these articles, we found 464 passages containing reasons for and against conducting human-animal chimera research. We classified these reasons into five categories and, within these, identified 12 broad and 31 narrow reason types. 15% of the retrieved passages contained reasons in favor of conducting chimera research (Category P), while 85% of the passages contained reasons against it. The reasons against conducting chimera research fell into four further categories: reasons concerning the creation of a chimera (Category A), its treatment (Category B), reasons referring to metaphysical or social issues resulting from its existence (Category C) and to potential downstream effects of chimera research (Category D). A significant proportion of identified passages (46%) fell under Category C.ConclusionsWe hope that our results, in revealing the conceptual and argumentative structure of the debate and highlighting some its most notable tendencies and prominent positions, will facilitate continued discussion and provide a basis for the development of relevant policy and legislation.

Project description:BackgroundSystematic reviews and meta-analyses of pre-clinical studies, in vivo animal experiments in particular, can influence clinical care. Publication bias is one of the major threats of validity in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Previous empirical studies suggested that systematic reviews and meta-analyses have become more prevalent until 2010 and found evidence for compromised methodological rigor with a trend towards improvement. We aim to comprehensively summarize and update the evidence base on systematic reviews and meta-analyses of animal studies, their methodological quality and assessment of publication bias in particular.Methods/designThe objectives of this systematic review are as follows: •To investigate the epidemiology of published systematic reviews of animal studies until present. •To examine methodological features of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of animal studies with special attention to the assessment of publication bias. •To investigate the influence of systematic reviews of animal studies on clinical research by examining citations of the systematic reviews by clinical studies. Eligible studies for this systematic review constitute systematic reviews and meta-analyses that summarize in vivo animal experiments with the purpose of reviewing animal evidence to inform human health. We will exclude genome-wide association studies and animal experiments with the main purpose to learn more about fundamental biology, physical functioning or behavior. In addition to the inclusion of systematic reviews and meta-analyses identified by other empirical studies, we will systematically search Ovid Medline, Embase, ToxNet, and ScienceDirect from 2009 to January 2013 for further eligible studies without language restrictions. Two reviewers working independently will assess titles, abstracts, and full texts for eligibility and extract relevant data from included studies. Data reporting will involve a descriptive summary of meta-analyses and systematic reviews.DiscussionResults are expected to be publicly available later in 2013 and may form the basis for recommendations to improve the quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of animal studies and their use with respect to clinical care.

Dataset Information

Transparency in controversial research: A review of human embryo research publication ethical disclosure statements.

Publications

Transparency in controversial research: A review of human embryo research publication ethical disclosure statements.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets