Eggleson Kathleen K
Center for Nano Science and Technology, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556, USA.
Perspect Biol Med. 2012 Winter;55(1):1-25. doi: 10.1353/pbm.2012.0001.
Stem cell research has entered the public consciousness through the media. Proponents and opponents of all such research, or of human embryonic stem cell research specifically, engage in heated exchanges in the modern public forum where stakeholders negotiate, the agora. One common claim that emerges from the fray is that a particular type of stem cell research should be pursued as the most promising path toward the reduction of suffering and untimely death for all of humanity. Upon evaluation, experimental data regarding the potential role of stem cells in regenerative therapies for three conditions-spinal cord injury, type 1 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease-tell distinct, complex, and inconclusive stories. Further analyses in this article incorporate realistic considerations of a broad range of relevant factors: limited funding for biomedical research, media motives, the discordance hypothesis of evolutionary medicine, the relationship between religion and science, medical care in developing nations, and culture wars over abortion. Holistic investigation inspired by the current agora conversation supports the need to drastically change interactions regarding stem cell research so that its potential to benefit humanity may be more fully realized.
干细胞研究通过媒体进入了公众的视野。所有这类研究的支持者和反对者，尤其是人类胚胎干细胞研究的支持者和反对者，在现代公共论坛上展开了激烈的争论，在这个公共论坛上，利益相关者进行协商，即古希腊的集市。从这场争论中出现的一个常见观点是，应该进行一种特定类型的干细胞研究，将其作为减少全人类痛苦和过早死亡的最有希望的途径。经评估，关于干细胞在脊髓损伤、1型糖尿病和心血管疾病这三种病症的再生治疗中的潜在作用的实验数据，讲述了截然不同、复杂且尚无定论的情况。本文的进一步分析纳入了对广泛相关因素的现实考量：生物医学研究资金有限、媒体动机、进化医学的不一致假说、宗教与科学的关系、发展中国家的医疗保健以及关于堕胎的文化战争。受当前公共论坛讨论启发的全面调查支持大幅改变干细胞研究相关互动的必要性，以便更充分地实现其造福人类的潜力。
