Advertisement

Unruhe und Ungewissheit: Stem Cells and Risks

  • Nils-Eric Sahlin
  • Johannes Persson
  • Niklas Vareman
Part of the Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine book series (STEMCELL)

Abstract

This paper focuses on the risk of unknown and uncertain long-term effects of stem cell research and its applications. Research on human embryonic stem cells and induced pluripotent stem cells are used as examples. We discuss some problems that such uncertain knowledge creates for decision makers, and describe how difficult decision making in this context really is. A method for handling this type of hard choice situations is presented and discussed.

Keywords

Decision-making Epistemic risk Knowledge uncertainty Risk Value uncertainty 

References

  1. 1.
    Brännmark J, Sahlin, N-E. Ethical theory and philosophy of risk: First thoughts. Journal of Risk Research 2008; 11:237–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Belmonte JCI, Ellis J, Hochedlinger K, Yamanaka S. Viewpoint: Induced pluripotent stem cells and reprogramming: Seeing the science through the hype. Nature 2009; 10:878–83.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells, Wikipedia.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Castor A. Stem and progenitor cell involvement in acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Lund University, Faculty of Medicine doctoral dissertation series, Lund 2007: 59.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lister R, Pelizzola M, Dowen RH, Hawkins RD, Hon G, Tonti-Filippini J, et al. Human DNA methylomes at base resolution show widespread epigenomic differences. Nature 2009; 462:315–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Doi A, Park IH, Wen B, Murakami P, Aryee MJ, Irizarry R et al. Differential methylation of tissue- and cancer-specific CpG island shores distinguishes human-induced pluripotent stem cells, embryonic stem cells and fibroblasts. Nature Genetics 2009; 41:1350–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chin MH, Mason MJ, Xie W, Volinia S, Singer M, Peterson C et al. Induced pluripotent stem cells and embryonic stem cells are distinguished by gene expression signatures. Cell Stem Cell 2009; 5:111–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Movassagh M, Choy M-K, Goddard M, Bennett MR, Down TA, et al. Differential DNA methylation correlates with differential expression of angiogenic factors in human heart failure. PLoS One 2010; 5:e8564. doi: 10.1371.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sahlin N-E, Persson J. Epistemic risk: The significance of knowing what one does not know. In: Brehmer, B, Sahlin, N-E (Eds). Future risks and risk management. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 1994, pp. 37–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kahneman D, Wakker, P, Sarin, R. Back to Bentham: Explorations of experienced utility. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 1997; 112:375–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Frederick S, Loewenstein G. Hedonic adaptation. In: Kahneman D, et al. (Eds). Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. 1999: pp. 302–29.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tyc V. Psychological adaptation of children and adolescents with limb deficiencies: A review. Clinical Psychological Review 1992; 2:275–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Vareman N, Persson J. Why separate risk assessors and risk managers? Further external values affecting the risk assessor qua risk assessor. Journal of Risk Research 2010; 13:687–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nils-Eric Sahlin
    • 1
  • Johannes Persson
  • Niklas Vareman
  1. 1.Department of Medical Ethics, Biomedical Centre, BMC C13Lund UniversityLundSweden

Personalised recommendations