↓ Skip to main content

Attitudes Towards the Donation of Human Embryos for Stem Cell Research Among Chinese IVF Patients and Students

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 Mendeley
Title
Attitudes Towards the Donation of Human Embryos for Stem Cell Research Among Chinese IVF Patients and Students
Published in
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, July 2018
DOI 10.1007/s11673-018-9862-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Achim Rosemann, Huiyu Luo

Abstract

Bioethical debates on the use of human embryos and oocytes for stem cell research have often been criticized for the lack of empirical insights into the perceptions and experiences of the women and couples who are asked to donate these tissues in the IVF clinic. Empirical studies that have investigated the attitudes of IVF patients and citizens on the (potential) donation of their embryos and oocytes have been scarce and have focused predominantly on the situation in Europe and Australia. This article examines the viewpoints on the donation of embryos for stem cell research among IVF patients and students in China. Research into the perceptions of patients is based on in-depth interviews with IVF patients and IVF clinicians. Research into the attitudes of students is based on a quantitative survey study (n=427). The empirical findings in this paper indicate that perceptions of the donation of human embryos for stem cell research in China are far more diverse and complex than has commonly been suggested. Claims that ethical concerns regarding the donation and use of embryos and oocytes for stem cell research are typical for Western societies but absent in China cannot be upheld. The article shows that research into the situated perceptions and cultural specificities of human tissue donation can play a crucial role in the deconstruction of politicized bioethical argumentation and the (often ill-informed) assumptions about "others" that underlie socio-ethical debates on the moral dilemmas of technology developments in the life sciences.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 44 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 7 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 9%
Researcher 3 7%
Unspecified 2 5%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 15 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 16%
Social Sciences 6 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 11%
Unspecified 2 5%
Psychology 2 5%
Other 6 14%
Unknown 16 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 03 April 2019.
All research outputs
#13,931,319
of 23,094,276 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#364
of 603 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#175,826
of 327,941 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#7
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,094,276 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 603 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 327,941 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 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 50% of its contemporaries.