Stem Cell Reviews and Reports

, Volume 7, Issue 3, pp 657–663

In Delicate Balance: Stem Cells and Spinal Cord Injury Advocacy



Spinal cord injury (SCI) is a major focus for stem cell therapy (SCT). However, the science of SCT has not been well matched with an understanding of perspectives of persons with SCI. The online advocacy community is a key source of health information for primary stakeholders and their caregivers. In this study, we sought to characterize the content of SCI advocacy websites with respect to their discussion of SCT and stem cell tourism. We performed a comprehensive analysis of SCI advocacy websites identified through a web search and verified by expert opinion. Two independent researchers coded the information for major themes (e.g., scientific & clinical facts, research & funding, policy, ethics) and valence (positive, negative, balanced, neutral). Of the 40 SCI advocacy websites that met inclusion criteria, 50% (N=20) contained information about SCT. Less than 18% (N=7) contained information on stem cell tourism. There were more than ten times as many statements about SCT with a positive valence (N=67) as with a negative valence (N=6). Ethics-related SCT information comprised 20% (N=37) of the total content; the largest proportion of ethics-related content was devoted to stem cell tourism (80%, N=30 statements). Of those, the majority focused on the risks of stem cell tourism (N=16). Given the still-developing science behind SCT, the presence of cautionary information about stem cell tourism at advocacy sites is ethically appropriate. The absence of stem cell tourism information at the majority of advocacy sites represents a lost educational opportunity.


  1. 1.
    Keirstead, H., et al. (2005). Human embryonic stem cell-derived oligodendrocyte progenitor cell transplants remyelinate and restore locomotion after spinal cord injury. J. Neuroscience, 25, 4694–4705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    International Campaign for Cures of spinal cord injury Paralysis, “General Information” January 2010. <>
  3. 3.
    Tetzlaff, W., et al. (2010). A systematic review of cellular transplantation therapies for spinal cord injury. Journal of Neurotrauma, 27, 1–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Alper, J. (2009). Geron gets green light for human trial of ES cell-derived product. Nature Biotechnology March, 27(3), 213–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Geron Corporation. (2009). News Release: Geron and FDA Reach Agreement on Clinical Hold. October 2009. <>.
  6. 6.
    Lima, C., et al. (2006). Olfactory mucosa autografts in human spinal cord injury: a pilot clinical study. The Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine, 29(3), 191–203. discussion 204-6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lima, C., et al. (2010). Olfactory mucosal autografts and rehabilitation for chronic traumatic spinal cord injury. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, 24(1), 10–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Caulfield, T., et al. (2009). International stem cell environments: a world of difference. Nature Reports Stem Cells. Online April 2009; 10.1038/stemcells.2009.61.
  9. 9.
    Murdoch, C. E., & Scott, C. T. (2010). Stem cell tourism and the power of hope. The American Journal of Bioethics, 10(5), 16–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    DiTunno, P., et al. (2008). Who wants to walk? Preferences for recovery after SCI: a longitudinal and cross-sectional study. Spinal Cord, 46, 500–506.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hammell, K. W. (2007). Quality of life after spinal cord injury: a meta-synthesis of qualitative findings. Spinal Cord, 45, 124–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kilgore, K. L., et al. (2001). Neuroprosthesis consumer’s forum: consumer priorities for research directions. Journal of Rehabilitation R&D, 38(6), 665–660.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Estores, I. (2003). The consumer’s perspective and the professional literature: what do persons with Spinal Cord Injury want? J. Rehab. Res. Dev., 40(1), 93–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Furlan, J., & Fehlings, M. (2006). A web-based review on traumatic spinal cord injury comparing the “citation classics” with the consumers’ perspectives. Journal of Neurotrauma, 23(2), 156–169.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Downey, R., & Geransar, R. (2008). Stem cell research, publics’ and stakeholders’ views. Health and Law Review, 16(2), 69–85.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Petch, T. (2004). Content Analysis of Selected Health Information Websites. Action for Heath in Association with Simon Fraser University; pp 1–79.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Goodman et al. (2008). Computer and internet use by persons after traumatic spinal cord injury. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 89, 1492–1498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Noble, M. (2005). Ethics in the trenched: a multifaceted analysis of the stem cell debate. Stem Cell Reviews, 1, 345–376.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lindvall, O., & Hyun, I. (2009). Medical innovation versus stem cell tourism. Science, 324(5935), 1664–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Racine, E., et al. (2007). Internet marketing of neuroproducts: new practices and healthcare policy challenges. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 16, 181–194.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lombard, M., Snyder-Duch, J., & Bracken, C. (2002). Content analysis in mass communication: assessment and reporting of inter-coder reliability. Human Communication Research, 48(4), 587–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Radin, P. (2006). “To me, it’s my life”: medical communication, trust and activism in cyberspace. Social Science & Medicine, 62, 591–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kovic, I., Lulic, I., & Brumini, G. (2008). Examining the medical blogosphere: an online survey of medical bloggers. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 10(3), e28.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kim, S. (2009). Content analysis of cancer blog posts. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 97(4), 260–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Illes, et al. Stem cell clinical trials for spinal cord injury: readiness, reluctance, redefinition, in preparationGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Reimer, J., Borgelt, E., & Illes, J. (2010). In pursuit of “informed hope” in the stem cell discourse. The American Journal of Bioethics, 10(5), 31–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Orive, et al. (2003). Controversies over stem cell research. Trends in Biotechnology, 21(3), 109–112.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Illes, J., Lau, P. W., & Giacino, J. T. (2008). Viewpoint: neuroimaging, impaired states of consciousness, and public outreach. Nature Clinical Practice. Neurology, 4(10), 542–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Smolinsky, M. (2008). Brain imaging. Neurology, 4(4), 11.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Core for NeuroethicsUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  2. 2.Canada Research Chair in Neuroethics and Professor of Neurology Division of Neurology, Department of MedicineUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations