Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Communicating Risks and Benefits About Ethically Controversial Topics: the Case of Induced Pluripotent Stem (iPS) Cells

  • Published:
Stem Cell Reviews and Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Many are supportive of approaches that incorporate lay citizens into policy making and risk management decisions. However, a great deal of learning must first take place about how citizen engagement for controversial topics is best accomplished. Online risk communication efforts are increasing in popularity but there is little empirical evidence accrued to demonstrate the effectiveness of such methods. The intention of our overall study is to create a powerful method for in-depth two-way communication with the public and expert communities about complex and sensitive issues at the heart of stem cell (SC) research. The fundamental objective is to raise awareness of SC science with lay citizens by fostering more holistic or “all things considered” ethical judgments. Our risk communication study demonstrates that lay citizens are both interested in, and capable of learning about, complex scientific issues provided the right tools are used to convey information and assess understanding. Our results show that it is worth the time and effort for SC researchers to continue posting podcasts and FAQ’s about their work for non-expert communities to view. In addition, despite having increased our participants’ risk perceptions about induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cell research, almost all were very supportive of this type of research in Canada by the end of the survey. In other words, participants understood that this research did in fact pose some risks and learned a great deal about both the risks and benefits of iPS cell research, and still thought this research was worthwhile to pursue.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. This study received ethical approval by the Behavioral Research Ethics Board at The University of British Columbia under the ID H10-01876.

  2. Please see the Canadian Stem Cell Network website http://www.stemcellnetwork.ca/index.php?page=home&hl=eng

  3. The survey was created using the N-Reasons platform developed by Dr. Peter Danielson [19].

  4. The media article was written by a professional science journalist for an unnamed newspaper. It claimed to be reporting about a Stem Cell Ethics workshop that was held the previous day at the Sheraton Wall Street Hotel in Vancouver with a group of Canadian researchers, regulators, and bioethicists.

  5. The survey was so popular in fact that we were unable to close the survey quickly enough and ultimately over sampled by 21 participants.

  6. As with other Ipsos online surveys, participants in this project accumulated points that can then be exchanged on the dedicated panelists’ website for a variety of vouchers, gift cards, and/or merchandise.

  7. The 2001 Canadian Census data was the latest national data available at the time of our study.

  8. All statistically significant with a P value less than 0.0001 and a 95% confidence interval according to McNemar’s test for a case–control study [21, 22].

  9. All statistically significant with a P value less than 0.0001 and a 95% confidence interval according to McNemar’s test for a case–control study.

  10. In addition to an “other” category that included responses that did not fit under any of the main themes.

References

  1. National Academy of Sciences (2008). In T. Dietz, P. C. Stern (Eds.), Panel on public participation in environmental assessment and decision making. National Research Council.

  2. Sherwin, S. (2008). Whither bioethics? How feminism can help reorient bioethics. The International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics, 1(1), 7–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Burgess, M., Tansey, J., Einsiedel, Burgess, M., & Tansey, J. (2006). Technology, democracy, and ethics: Democratic deficit and the ethics of public engagement. In A. Einsiedel & R. Parker (Eds.), Hindsight and foresight on emerging technologies (pp. 275–289). Vancouver: UBC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Schrader-Frechette, K. (1995). Evaluating the expertise of experts. Risk, 6, 115–126.

    Google Scholar 

  5. McComas, K. (2006). Defining moments in risk communication research: 1996–2005. Journal of Health Communication, 11, 75–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Rowe, G., & Gammack, J. G. (2004). Promise and perils of electronic public engagement. Science and Public Policy, 31(1), 39–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Deliberative Democracy Consortium (2008). Where is democracy headed? Research and Practice on Public deliberation (p 41) http://www.deliberative-democracy.net/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_details&gid=14&Itemid=93 Accessed July 4, 2012.

  8. Fishkin, & Laslett (Eds.). (2003). Debating deliberative democracy (p. 26). Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Longstaff, H., & Burgess, M. M. (2010). Recruiting for representation in public deliberation on the ethics of biobanks. Public Understanding of Science, 19(2), 212–224.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Arvai, J., Gregory, R., & McDaniels, T. (2011). Testing a structured decision approach: value focused thinking for deliberative risk communication. Risk Analysis, 21(6), 1065–1076.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. McDonald, M. (2000). Biotechnology, ethics, and government a synthesis. Prepared for The Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee Project Steering Committee On Incorporating Social and Ethical Considerations into Biotechnology.

  12. Longstaff, H., Schuppli, C., Preto, N., Lafrenière, D., and McDonald, M. (2009). Scientists’ perspectives on the ethical issues of stem cell research. Stem Cell Reviews and Reports, 5(2), 89–95.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Takahashi, K., Tanabe, K., Ohnuki, M., Narita, M., Ichisaka, T., Tomoda, K., & Yamanaka, S. (2007). Induction of pluripotent stem cells from adult human fibroblasts by defined factors. Cell, 131(5), 861–872.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Yu, J., Vodyanik, M. A., Smuga-Otto, K., Antosiewicz-Bourget, J., Frane, J. L., Tian, S., Nie, J., Jonsdottir, G. A., Ruotti, V., Stewart, R., Slukvin, I. I., & Thomson, J. A. (2007). Induced pluripotent stem cell lines derived from human somatic cells. Science, 318(5858), 1917–1920.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Caulfield, T., & Zarzeczny, A. (2010). Popular culture representations of science: views from the Canadian stem cell research community. Stem Cell Review and Reports, 6(3), 337–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Young E. (2010) Christian physicians hail new breakthrough in stem cell research. Christian Post, http://www.christianpost.com/article/20101005/christian-physicians-hail-new-breakthrough-in-stem-cell-research/ Accessed July 4, 2012.

  17. Hyun,, Hochedlinger, Jaenisch, Yamanaka (2007). New advances in iPS cell research do not obviate the need for human embryonic stem cells. Cell Stem Cell Correspondence, 367–368.

  18. Caulfield T., and Rachul, C. (2011). Science Spin: iPS Cell Research in the News. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, 89, 644–646.

  19. Ahmad, R., Bailey, J., & Danielson, P. (2010). Analysis of an innovative survey platform: comparison of the public’s responses to human health and salmon genomics surveys. Public Understanding of Science, 19(2), 155–165.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Wilkes, R., Burnett, J., & Howell, R. (1986). On the meaning and measurement of religiosity in consumer research. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 14(1), 47–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Daniel, W. W. (1990). Applied nonparametric statistics (2nd ed.). Boston: PWS-Kent Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Sirkin, R. M. (1995). Statistics for social sciences. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Inc.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all the stem cell experts and lay citizens who participated in this study as well as our colleagues Christen Rachul, Amy Zarzeczny, and Timothy Caulfield (a Collaborator on this study) at the University of Alberta’s Health Law Institute who conducted the media review. We would also like to acknowledge additional members of our research team: Liz Wilcox, James Benoit, Kalan MacRow, the Ipsos online research team, and the UBC N-Reasons survey research team (PI Peter Danielson who is also a Collaborator on this study). Lastly, we are grateful to our funders at the Canadian Stem Cell Network and those who agreed to be Policy Receptors for this study.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

    Holly Longstaff, Michael McDonald & Jennifer Bailey

Authors
  1. Holly Longstaff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael McDonald
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jennifer Bailey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Holly Longstaff.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Longstaff, H., McDonald, M. & Bailey, J. Communicating Risks and Benefits About Ethically Controversial Topics: the Case of Induced Pluripotent Stem (iPS) Cells. Stem Cell Rev and Rep 9, 388–396 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12015-012-9407-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12015-012-9407-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation