Electronic Resource
The role of an expert discussion panel on shaping the views of the undergraduate in health sciences on the use of stem cells and pre-implantation embryos
| العنوان: | The role of an expert discussion panel on shaping the views of the undergraduate in health sciences on the use of stem cells and pre-implantation embryos |
|---|---|
| Additional Titles: | La influencia de un panel de discusión de expertos en la formación de opinión sobre el uso de células madre y embriones preimplantacionales en los estudiantes de ciencias de la salud de pregrado |
| المؤلفون: | Arráez Aybar, Luis Alfonso, Villanueva Orbaiz, Mª Rosa Rita, Catón Vázquez, Francisco Javier, Garcia Gómez, Susana, Bueno López, José Luis |
| بيانات النشر: | Elsevier 2023-06-17T08:28:16Z 2023-06-17T08:28:16Z 2020-09-23 |
| نوع الوثيقة: | Electronic Resource |
| مستخلص: | Introduction: There are four objectives to this paper: (1) To determine whether undergraduates enrolled in Health-Sciences studies agree with the use of human stem cells for medical research, treatment and genetic uses. (2) Whether they would consider the use of pre-implantationembryos for medical research. (3) Whether attitudes toward the previous two issues are linked to gender, field of study, transcendental/spiritual convictions and political biases. (4) A panel of discussion will modify their opinion. Results: The present study shows that, before attending a discussion panel session, media was the main source of information that the students had on the surveyed topics. A discussion panel was useful for clarifying respondents’ opinions on the explored items. Significantly, the discussion panel had an influence on those respondents who did not have a formed opinion on the explored items. Conclusions: A discussion panel is a convenient, but limited tool, in the shaping of undergraduate opinions on ethically controversial scientific matters. UCM Depto. de Anatomía y Embriología Depto. de Salud Pública y Materno - Infantil Fac. de Medicina TRUE pub |
| مصطلحات الفهرس: | Bioethics, Health-sciencesundergraduates, Discussion panel, Preimplantation embryos, Science and religion, Science attitudes and perceptions, Stem cells, Bioética, Pregraduados en ciencias de la salud, Panel de discusión, Embrión preimplantatorio, Ciencia y religión, Actitudes y percepciones científicas, Células madre, Ginecología y obstetricia, Bioética (Biología), Biología celular (Biología), Genética, Religión (Sociología), Enseñanza universitaria, 3201.08 Ginecología, 7103.04 Ética de la Ciencia, 2407 Biología Celular, 2409 Genética, 6301.10 Sociología de la Religión, 5801.08 Enseñanza Programada, journal article |
| URL: | PIMCD-371-2011 |
| الاتاحة: | Open access content. Open access content Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 3.0 España https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/es open access |
| ملاحظة: | application/pdf 1575-1813 English |
| Other Numbers: | ESRCM oai:docta.ucm.es:20.500.14352/7218 1. Merton RK. Teoría y estructuras sociales Fondo de Cultura Económica. México, DF; 1964. 2. Nelkin D. God talk: confusion between science and religion posthumous essay. Sci Technol Hum Values. 2004;29:139---52. 3. Yamanaka S. Risk taking is in his genes. In: Fackler M, editor. December 11, 2007 ed. New York: The New York Times Company; 2007. 4. Evans MS. Supporting science reasons, restrictions, and the role of religion. Sci Commun. 2012;34:334---62. 5. Maehle A-H. Ambiguous cells: the emergence of the stem cell concept in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Notes Rec R Soc. 2011;65:359---78. 6. Takahashi K, Yamanaka S. Induction of pluripotent stem cells from mouse embryonic and adult fibroblast cultures by defined factors. Cell. 2006;126:663---76. 7. Hussein SM, Puri MC, Tonge PD, Benevento M, Corso AJ, Clancy JL, et al. Genome-wide characterization of the routes to pluripotency. Nature. 2014;516:198---206. 8. Hogle LF. Contemporary issues in regenerative medicine research ethics and governance: an overview. In: Hogle LF, editor. Regenerative medicine ethics. New York: Springer; 2014. p.3---28. 9. Ferrer MC, Pastor L. Use of the term ‘‘pre-embryo’’ in the biomedical literature from its origin to the present. Cuadernos de bioetica: revista oficial de la Asociacion Espanola de Bioetica y Etica Medica. 2017;28:111---24. 10. Warnock M. Report of the Committee of Inquiry Into Human Fertilisation and Embryology, Cmnd. 9314. London: Department of Health & Social Security, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (HMSO); 1984. 11. Jones DG, Telfer B. Before I was an embryo, I was a pre-embryo: or was I? Bioethics. 1995;9:32---49. 12. McLaren A. Prelude to embryogenesis. In: Bock G, O’Connor M, editors. Human embryo research yes or no? London: Tavistock Publications; 1986. p. 5---32. 13. Caceda R, James GA, Ely TD, Snarey J, Kilts CD. Mode of effective connectivity within a putative neural network differentiates moral cognitions related to care and justice ethics. PLoS ONE. 20 1575-1813 10.1016/j.edumed.2018.10.010 1413950070 |
| المصدر المساهم: | REPOSITORIO E-PRINTS UNIVERSIDAD COMPLU From OAIster®, provided by the OCLC Cooperative. |
| رقم الانضمام: | edsoai.on1413950070 |
| قاعدة البيانات: | OAIster |
| الوصف غير متاح. |