| Title |
Stem Cell Policy Exceptionalism: Proceed with Caution
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Stem Cell Reviews and Reports, August 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12015-011-9305-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Geoffrey P. Lomax, Steven R. Peckman |
| Abstract |
The term "stem cell exceptionalism" has been used to characterize the policy response to controversies surrounding human embryonic stem cell research. For example, governments and funding agencies have adopted policies governing the derivation and use of human embryonic stem cell lines. These policies have effectively served to fill gaps in existing guidelines and regulations and signal that scientists are committed to a responsible framework for the conduct of research involving human embryos. Recent publications discuss whether ethical and policy issues associated with induced pluripotent cells (iPSCs) from non-embryonic sources create a need for further policy intervention. We suggest many of the issues identified by commentators may be addressed through the application of established policy frameworks governing the use of tissue, human stem cells, and research participation by human research subjects. To the extent, iPSC research intersects with hESC research (e.g. the creation of human gametes and/or embryos), the policy framework governing hESC appears sufficiently robust at this time. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| South Africa | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 27 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 8 | 29% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 4 | 14% |
| Unknown | 7 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 21% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 11% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 7% |
| Arts and Humanities | 2 | 7% |
| Psychology | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 5 | 18% |
| Unknown | 8 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 September 2013.
All research outputs
#6,330,323
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Stem Cell Reviews and Reports
#273
of 1,035 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,570
of 131,760 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Stem Cell Reviews and Reports
#4
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,035 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 131,760 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.