Difference between revisions of "Resource:3d565816-370d-43a0-8cef-acb00f74f325"

From The Embassy of Good Science
(Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=For love or money? The saga of Korean women whoprovided eggs for embryonic stem cell research |Is About=This paper summarizes the Hwang...")
 
 
(8 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{Resource
 
{{Resource
 
|Resource Type=Cases
 
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=For love or money? The saga of Korean women whoprovided eggs for embryonic stem cell research
+
|Title=The Saga of Korean Women Who Provided Eggs for Embryonic Stem Cell Research
|Is About=This paper summarizes the Hwang debacle with particular attention to the egg scandal and ends with some preliminary thoughts on patriotism as a motive for research participation<ref>https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11017-009-9118-0</ref>.
+
|Is About=This paper summarizes a scandal related to the origin of the eggs obtained for research on cloned human embryos. In 2004 and 2005, researcher 'W' was acclaimed for creating stem cells from cloned human embryos. Concerns were later raised, however, about the source of the eggs for the embryos. An investigation discovered that the researcher had failed to fully inform the women donating the eggs about the purpose of the research, had failed to gain their informed consent, and had made payments or 'undue inducements' to obtain eggs. In fact, 75% of women had received payments and two female junior researchers from research W's lab were coerced into donating their own eggs<ref>Baylis, Francoise. "For love or money? The saga of Korean women who provided eggs for embryonic stem cell research." ''Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics'' 30.5 (2009): 385.</ref>. This is a factual case.
|Important Because=In 2004 and 2005, Woo-Suk Hwang achieved international stardom with publications in Science reporting on successful research involving the creation of stem cells from cloned human embryos. The wonder and success all began to unravel, however, when serious ethical concerns were raised about the source of the eggs for this research. When the egg scandal had completely unfolded, it turned out that many of the women who provided eggs for stem cell research had not provided valid consents and that nearly 75% of the women egg providers had received cash or in-kind payments. Among those who did not receive direct benefits, some cited patriotism as their reason for participating in embryonic stem cell research, hence the question ‘‘for love or money?’’—namely, patriotism versus payment<ref>https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11017-009-9118-0</ref>.
+
<references />
|Important For=researchers; research leaders
+
|Important Because=Common research ethics principles (Belmont 1978) that  should be upheld are<ref>National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, Bethesda, Md. ''The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research''. Superintendent of Documents, 1978.</ref> :
 +
 
 +
'''Respect for persons''': individuals are autonomous agents and those with diminished autonomy are entitled to protection.
 +
 
 +
'''Beneficence''': researchers should (1) do no harm and (2) increase potential benefits and decrease possible adverse events or harm. Participants must be aware of the risks and burdens of research.  
 +
 
 +
'''Justice''': requires equal treatment and fairness for all people.  
 +
 
 +
In the case in question, a failure to adequately inform research participants or coercing people to join research violated these principles.<references />
 +
|Important For=researchers; research leaders; Research subjects
 
}}
 
}}
 
{{Link
 
{{Link
 
|Has Link=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11017-009-9118-0
 
|Has Link=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11017-009-9118-0
 
}}
 
}}
{{Related To}}
+
{{Related To
 +
|Related To Theme=Theme:D44fd22a-ed5d-4120-a78b-8881747131fd;Theme:0d054575-ca21-4209-b7c5-6120fc0ed647
 +
}}
 
{{Tags
 
{{Tags
 +
|Has Timepoint=2004
 
|Has Location=South Korea
 
|Has Location=South Korea
 
|Has Virtue And Value=Reliability; Honesty; Respect
 
|Has Virtue And Value=Reliability; Honesty; Respect

Latest revision as of 19:18, 25 October 2020

Cases

The Saga of Korean Women Who Provided Eggs for Embryonic Stem Cell Research

What is this about?

This paper summarizes a scandal related to the origin of the eggs obtained for research on cloned human embryos. In 2004 and 2005, researcher 'W' was acclaimed for creating stem cells from cloned human embryos. Concerns were later raised, however, about the source of the eggs for the embryos. An investigation discovered that the researcher had failed to fully inform the women donating the eggs about the purpose of the research, had failed to gain their informed consent, and had made payments or 'undue inducements' to obtain eggs. In fact, 75% of women had received payments and two female junior researchers from research W's lab were coerced into donating their own eggs[1]. This is a factual case.

  1. Baylis, Francoise. "For love or money? The saga of Korean women who provided eggs for embryonic stem cell research." Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 30.5 (2009): 385.

Why is this important?

Common research ethics principles (Belmont 1978) that  should be upheld are[1] :

Respect for persons: individuals are autonomous agents and those with diminished autonomy are entitled to protection.

Beneficence: researchers should (1) do no harm and (2) increase potential benefits and decrease possible adverse events or harm. Participants must be aware of the risks and burdens of research.

Justice: requires equal treatment and fairness for all people.

In the case in question, a failure to adequately inform research participants or coercing people to join research violated these principles.
  1. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, Bethesda, Md. The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. Superintendent of Documents, 1978.

For whom is this important?

Other information

When
Virtues & Values
Good Practices & Misconduct
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.
5.1.6