Use of human embryonic stem cells and umbilical cord blood stem cells for research and therapy: a prospective survey among health care professionals and patients in Switzerland

BACKGROUND: Scientific progress in the biology of hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) provides opportunities for advances in therapy for different diseases. While stem cell sources such as umbilical cord blood (UCB) are unproblematic, other sources such as human embryonic stem cells (hESCs) raise ethical concerns. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: In a prospective survey we established the ethical acceptability of collection, research, and therapy with UCB HSCs versus hESCs among health care professionals, pregnant women, patients undergoing in vitro fertilization therapy, parents, and HSC donors and recipients in Switzerland. RESULTS: There was overall agreement about an ethical justification for the collection of UCB for research and therapy in the majority of participants (82%). In contrast, research and therapy with hESCs was acceptable only by a minority (38% of all responders). The collection of hESCs solely created for HSC collection purposes met overall with the lowest approval rates. Hematologists displayed among the participants the highest acceptance rates for the use of hESCs with 55% for collection, 63% for research, and 73% for therapy. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study assessing the perception of hESCs for research and therapy in comparison with UCB HSCs in different target groups that are exposed directly, indirectly, or not at all to stem cell-based medicine. Our study shows that the debate over the legitimacy of embryo-destructive transplantation medicine is far from over as particularly hESC research continues to present an ethical problem to an overwhelming majority among laypersons and even among health care professionals.

Panel report ECIS 2012: publication strategy for junior researchers: quantity vs. quality, importance of the first authorship and collaboration

The publication record is a key component of a successful academic career in IS. Despite its importance, its definition - especially for junior researchers���remains unclear. Is it better to have one A-publication or three Bpublications? Does being the third author on an A-publication carry more weight than being the first author on a Bpublication? Is it better to publish with as few co-authors as possible to demonstrate ability for independent work or is publishing with others a sign of good teamwork and academic excellence? Faced with these uncertainties, young researchers increasingly question the choices they make regarding their publication strategy. If unaddressed, these issues are bound to interfere with the quality of the IS research and scholars��� job satisfaction. This article raises these concerns associated with a publication strategy for junior researchers and reports the views voiced by five academics at a panel session at the European Conference on Information Systems 2012. In particular, the following topics are discussed: quantity vs. quality, value of the first authorship, the ���optimal��� number of authors, and the issues of co-authorship with an academic supervisor.