Scientists’ language use in communication to or with the public has often been criticised as merely strategic. This article explores three terms employed in stem cell and genomic research, to support the hypothesis that biomedical terminology is heavily influenced by different legal, cultural, and ethical backgrounds in different societies. The word ‘pre-embryo’ has never been part of any acceptable official rhetoric in Germany but was important in Britain. The ‘toti-’, ‘pluri-’, or ‘multipotency’ of specific stem cells became a topical issue (...) of scientific expertise in countries with strict regulations on embryo research. The distinction between ‘reproductive’ and ‘therapeutic’ cloning has become very common but problematic due to its obvious strategic purpose, and is intensely debated in the scientific community. The examination of these examples and the cultural framework in which they gain importance will demonstrate the mutual interconnectedness of biomedical science and social and cultural conditions. Separation of a purely descriptive terminology that belongs to science itself, adequately describing its discoveries, and a rhetoric that addresses external, non-scientific attitudes is impossible. Regulations, social discourses, and cultural traditions influence biomedical sciences, their scientific research projects and the terminology employed therein. Biomedical practices are considered ethically problematic not only by those external to the scientific realms, but also by some professionals participating in the research. Biomedical science is not a discrete field with clear boundaries and has to be re-conceptualized as an integral and important part of modern culture. (shrink)

While the clinical promise of much stem cell research remains largely theoretical, patients are nonetheless pursuing unproven stem cell therapies in jurisdictions around the world—a phenomenon referred to as “stem cell tourism.” These treatments are generally advertised on a direct-to-consumer basis via the Internet. Research shows portrayals of stem cell medicine on such websites are overly optimistic and the claims made are unsubstantiated by published evidence. However, anecdotal evidence suggests that parents are pursing these “treatments” for their children, despite potential (...) physical and financial risk. Physicians are in a unique position as they can be expected to be involved in, or privy to, such decisions. In this paper, we consider what duties physicians may have toward minor patients whose parents/guardians wish to engage in stem cell tourism on their behalf. We use the Canadian perspective to address the broadly relevant issues raised by this trend. (shrink)

This paper explores the notions of hope and how individual patient autonomy can trump carefully reasoned ethical concerns and policies intended to regulate stem cell transplants. We argue that the same limits of knowledge that inform arguments to restrain and regulate unproven treatments might also undermine our ability to comprehensively dismiss or condemn them. Incautiously or indiscriminately reasoned policies and attitudes may drive critical information and data underground, impel patients away from working with clinical researchers, and tread needlessly on hope, (...) the essential motivator of patients, advocates and researchers alike. We offer recommendations to clinicians and health care providers to help balance the discourse with individuals seeking treatment while guarding against fraud, misconception, and patient harm. (shrink)