Ghent University Academic Bibliography

Advanced

Complicity in stem cell research: the case of induced pluripotent stem cells

Katrien Devolder (2010) HUMAN REPRODUCTION. 25(9). p.2175-2180
abstract
Many who object to human embryonic stem cell (hESC) research because they believe it involves complicity in embryo destruction have welcomed induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC) research as an ethical alternative. This opinion article aims to show that complicity arguments against hESC research are prima facie inconsistent with accepting iPSC research as it is currently done. Those who oppose hESC research on grounds of complicity should either (i) oppose iPSC research as well, (ii) advocate a radical change in the way iPSC research is done, (iii) demonstrate that complicity arguments against iPSC research are weaker than those against hESC research or (iv) reject complicity arguments against both hESC and iPSC research, either by adopting a more limited conception of complicity that allows acceptance of some hESC research, or by accepting that destroying embryos for important scientific research is not wrong.
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
year
type
journalArticle (original)
publication status
published
subject
keyword
embryo research, moral status, complicity, induced pluripotent stem cells, embryonic stem cells
journal title
HUMAN REPRODUCTION
Hum. Reprod.
volume
25
issue
9
pages
2175 - 2180
Web of Science type
Article
Web of Science id
000281343700004
JCR category
OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
JCR impact factor
4.357 (2010)
JCR rank
3/75 (2010)
JCR quartile
1 (2010)
ISSN
0268-1161
DOI
10.1093/humrep/deq176
language
English
UGent publication?
yes
classification
A1
copyright statement
I have transferred the copyright for this publication to the publisher
id
1855977
handle
http://hdl.handle.net/1854/LU-1855977
date created
2011-07-08 10:39:46
date last changed
2016-12-19 15:42:17
@article{1855977,
  abstract     = {Many who object to human embryonic stem cell (hESC) research because they believe it involves complicity in embryo destruction have welcomed induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC) research as an ethical alternative. This opinion article aims to show that complicity arguments against hESC research are prima facie inconsistent with accepting iPSC research as it is currently done. Those who oppose hESC research on grounds of complicity should either (i) oppose iPSC research as well, (ii) advocate a radical change in the way iPSC research is done, (iii) demonstrate that complicity arguments against iPSC research are weaker than those against hESC research or (iv) reject complicity arguments against both hESC and iPSC research, either by adopting a more limited conception of complicity that allows acceptance of some hESC research, or by accepting that destroying embryos for important scientific research is not wrong.},
  author       = {Devolder, Katrien},
  issn         = {0268-1161},
  journal      = {HUMAN REPRODUCTION},
  keyword      = {embryo research,moral status,complicity,induced pluripotent stem cells,embryonic stem cells},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {9},
  pages        = {2175--2180},
  title        = {Complicity in stem cell research: the case of induced pluripotent stem cells},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deq176},
  volume       = {25},
  year         = {2010},
}

Chicago
Devolder, Katrien. 2010. “Complicity in Stem Cell Research: The Case of Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells.” Human Reproduction 25 (9): 2175–2180.
APA
Devolder, Katrien. (2010). Complicity in stem cell research: the case of induced pluripotent stem cells. HUMAN REPRODUCTION, 25(9), 2175–2180.
Vancouver
1.
Devolder K. Complicity in stem cell research: the case of induced pluripotent stem cells. HUMAN REPRODUCTION. 2010;25(9):2175–80.
MLA
Devolder, Katrien. “Complicity in Stem Cell Research: The Case of Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells.” HUMAN REPRODUCTION 25.9 (2010): 2175–2180. Print.