Search

Risk prediction in emergency medicine (EM) holds unique challenges due to issues surrounding urgency, blurry research-practise distinctions, and the high-pressure environment in emergency departments (ED). Artificial intelligence (AI) risk prediction tools have been developed with the aim of streamlining triaging processes and mitigating perennial issues affecting EDs globally, such as overcrowding and delays. The implementation of these tools is complicated by the potential risks associated with over-triage and under-triage, untraceable false positives, as well as the potential for the biases of healthcare professionals toward technology leading to the incorrect usage of such tools. This paper explores risk surrounding these issues in an analysis of a case study involving a machine learning triage tool called the Score for Emergency Risk Prediction (SERP) in Singapore. This tool is used for estimating mortality risk in presentation at the ED. After two successful retrospective studies demonstrating SERP's strong predictive accuracy, researchers decided that the pre-implementation randomised controlled trial (RCT) would not be feasible due to how the tool interacts with clinical judgement, complicating the blinded arm of the trial. This led them to consider other methods of testing SERP's real-world capabilities, such as ongoing-evaluation type studies. We discuss the outcomes of a risk-benefit analysis to argue that the proposed implementation strategy is ethically appropriate and aligns with improvement-focused and systemic approaches to implementation, especially the learning health systems framework (LHS) to ensure safety, efficacy, and ongoing learning., Competing Interests: Competing InterestsNan Liu holds patents related to triage and is an advisor to TIIM Healthcare., (© The Author(s) 2025.)

Disagreements about language use are common both between and within fields. Where interests require multidisciplinary collaboration or the field of research has the potential to impact society at large, it becomes critical to minimize these disagreements where possible. The development of diverse intelligent systems, regardless of the substrate (e.g., silicon vs. biology), is a case where both conditions are met. Significant advancements have occurred in the development of technology progressing toward these diverse intelligence systems. Whether progress is silicon based, such as the use of large language models, or through synthetic biology methods, such as the development of organoids, a clear need for a community-based approach to seeking consensus on nomenclature is now vital. Here, we welcome collaboration from the wider scientific community, proposing a pathway forward to achieving this intention, highlighting key terms and fields of relevance, and suggesting potential consensus-making methods to be applied., Competing Interests: B.J.K. and M.M. are employees of Cortical Labs. B.J.K. is a shareholder of Cortical Labs., (© 2024 The Authors.)

Large data-intensive health research programmes benefit from collaboration amongst researchers who may be located in different institutions and international contexts. However, complexities in navigating privacy frameworks and data protection laws across various jurisdictions pose significant challenges to researchers seeking to share or transfer data outside of institutional boundaries. Research on the awareness of data protection and privacy laws amongst stakeholders is limited. Our qualitative study, drawn from a larger project in Singapore, revealed insights into stakeholders' perceptions of the role of law in cross-national health data research. Stakeholders in our study demonstrated a range of perceptions regarding the role of data protection law in governing the collection and transfer of health data for research. The main criticisms included inadequate legal protection to data and lack of uniformed data protection standards. Despite these criticisms, participants recognised the importance of data protection law in supporting cross-border data transfers and proposed measures to improve perceived limitations of existing laws. These measures include strengthening existing legal framework, establishing contractual agreements and imposing severe punishments for data misuse., Competing Interests: Competing InterestsThe authors declare no competing interests., (© The Author(s) 2024.)

Background: The following outlines ethical reasons for widening the Human Genome Organisation's (HUGO) mandate to include ecological genomics. MAIN: The environment influences an organism's genome through ambient factors in the biosphere (e.g. climate and UV radiation), as well as the agents it comes into contact with, i.e. the epigenetic and mutagenic effects of inanimate chemicals and pollution, and pathogenic organisms. Emerging scientific consensus is that social determinants of health, environmental conditions and genetic factors work together to influence the risk of many complex illnesses. That paradigm can also explain the environmental and ecological determinants of health as factors that underlie the (un)healthy ecosystems on which communities rely. We suggest that The Ecological Genome Project is an aspirational opportunity to explore connections between the human genome and nature. We propose consolidating a view of Ecogenomics to provide a blueprint to respond to the environmental challenges that societies face. This can only be achieved by interdisciplinary engagement between genomics and the broad field of ecology and related practice of conservation. In this respect, the One Health approach is a model for environmental orientated work. The idea of Ecogenomics-a term that has been used to relate to a scientific field of ecological genomics-becomes the conceptual study of genomes within the social and natural environment., Conclusion: The HUGO Committee on Ethics, Law and Society (CELS) recommends that an interdisciplinary One Health approach should be adopted in genomic sciences to promote ethical environmentalism. This perspective has been reviewed and endorsed by the HUGO CELS and the HUGO Executive Board., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Human fetal tissue and cells derived from fetal tissue are crucial for biomedical research. Fetal tissues and cells are used to study both normal development and developmental disorders. They are broadly applied in vaccine development and production. Further, research using cells from fetal tissue is instrumental for studying many infectious diseases, including a broad range of viruses. These widespread applications underscore the value of fetal tissue research and reflect an important point: cells derived from fetal tissues have capabilities that cells from other sources do not. In many cases, increased functionality of cells derived from fetal tissues arises from increased proliferative capacity, ability to survive in culture, and developmental potential that is attenuated in adult tissues. This review highlights important, representative applications of fetal tissue for science and medicine., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests The authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Integrating neural cultures developed through synthetic biology methods with digital computing has enabled the early development of Synthetic Biological Intelligence (SBI). Recently, key studies have emphasized the advantages of biological neural systems in some information processing tasks. However, neither the technology behind this early development, nor the potential ethical opportunities or challenges, have been explored in detail yet. Here, we review the key aspects that facilitate the development of SBI and explore potential applications. Considering these foreseeable use cases, various ethical implications are proposed. Ultimately, this work aims to provide a robust framework to structure ethical considerations to ensure that SBI technology can be both researched and applied responsibly., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest B.J.K. is an inventor on patents for technology related to this paper along with being employed at and holding shares in Cortical Labs Pty Ltd., Melbourne, Australia. No specific funding or other incentives were provided for involvement in this publication and there are no further potential conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

One of the core goals of Digital Health Technologies (DHT) is to transform healthcare services and delivery by shifting primary care from hospitals into the community. However, achieving this goal will rely on the collection, use and storage of large datasets. Some of these datasets will be linked to multiple sources, and may include highly sensitive health information that needs to be transferred across institutional and jurisdictional boundaries. The growth of DHT has outpaced the establishment of clear legal pathways to facilitate the collection, use and transfer of potentially sensitive health data. Our study aimed to address this gap with an ethical code to guide researchers developing DHT with international collaborative partners in Singapore. We generated this code using a modified Policy Delphi process designed to engage stakeholders in the deliberation of health data ethics and governance. This paper reports the outcomes of this process along with the key components of the code and identifies areas for future research., (© 2023. BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature.)

There are ethical obligations to conduct research that contributes to generalisable knowledge and improves reproductive health, and this should include embryo research in jurisdictions where it is permitted. Often, the controversial nature of embryo research can alarm ethics committee members, which can unnecessarily delay important research that can potentially improve fertility for patients and society. Such delay is ethically unjustified. Moreover, countries such as the UK, Australia and Singapore have legislation which unnecessarily captures low-risk research, such as observational research, in an often cumbersome and protracted review process. Such countries should revise such legislation to better facilitate low-risk embryo research.We introduce a philosophical distinction to help decision-makers more efficiently identify higher risk embryo research from that which presents no more risks to persons than other types of tissue research. That distinction is between future person embryo research and non-future person embryo research. We apply this distinction to four examples of embryo research that might be presented to ethics committees.Embryo research is most controversial and deserving of detailed scrutiny when it potentially affects a future person. Where it does not, it should generally require less ethical scrutiny. We explore a variety of ways in which research can affect a future person, including by deriving information about that person, and manipulating eggs or sperm before an embryo is created., Competing Interests: Competing interests: JS, through his involvement with the Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, received funding through from the Victorian State Government through the Operational Infrastructure Support (OIS) Program. JS is a partner investigator on an Australian Research Council Linkage award (LP190100841, October 2020–2023) which involves industry partnership from Illumina. He does not personally receive or control any funds from Illumina. He presented at a Genomic Prediction-organised webinar (2021), but received no payment or other benefits from Genomic Prediction. He is a Bioethics Committee consultant for Bayer. No other COIs., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

High degrees of uncertainty and a lack of effective therapeutic treatments have characterized the COVID-19 pandemic and the provision of drug products outside research settings has been controversial. International guidelines for providing patients with experimental interventions to treat infectious diseases outside of clinical trials exist but it is unclear if or how they should apply in settings where clinical trials and research are strongly regulated. We propose the Professional Oversight of Emergency-Use Interventions and Monitoring System (POEIMS) as an alternative pathway based on guidance developed for the ethical provision of experimental interventions to treat COVID-19 in Singapore. We support our proposal with justifications that establish moral duties for physicians to record outcomes data and for institutions to establish monitoring systems for reporting information on safety and effectiveness to the relevant authorities. Institutions also have a duty to support generation of evidence for what constitutes good clinical practice and so should ensure the unproven intervention is made the subject of research studies that can contribute to generalizable knowledge as soon as practical and that physicians remain committed to supporting learning health systems. We outline key differences between POEIMS and other pathways for the provision of experimental interventions in public health emergencies., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Precision medicine (PM) programs typically use broad consent. This approach requires maintenance of the social license and public trust. The ultimate success of PM programs will thus likely be contingent upon understanding public expectations about data sharing and establishing appropriate governance structures. There is a lack of data on public attitudes towards PM in Asia., Methods: The aim of the research was to measure the priorities and preferences of Singaporeans for sharing health-related data for PM. We used adaptive choice-based conjoint analysis (ACBC) with four attributes: uses, users, data sensitivity and consent. We recruited a representative sample of n = 1000 respondents for an in-person household survey., Results: Of the 1000 respondents, 52% were female and majority were in the age range of 40-59 years (40%), followed by 21-39 years (33%) and 60 years and above (27%). A total of 64% were generally willing to share de-identified health data for IRB-approved research without re-consent for each study. Government agencies and public institutions were the most trusted users of data. The importance of the four attributes on respondents' willingness to share data were: users (39.5%), uses (28.5%), data sensitivity (19.5%), consent (12.6%). Most respondents found it acceptable for government agencies and hospitals to use de-identified data for health research with broad consent. Our sample was consistent with official government data on the target population with 52% being female and majority in the age range of 40-59 years (40%), followed by 21-39 years (33%) and 60 years and above (27%)., Conclusions: While a significant body of prior research focuses on preferences for consent, our conjoint analysis found consent was the least important attribute for sharing data. Our findings suggest the social license for PM data sharing in Singapore currently supports linking health and genomic data, sharing with public institutions for health research and quality improvement; but does not support sharing with private health insurers or for private commercial use.

Precision medicine (PM) aims to revolutionise healthcare, but little is known about the role religion and spirituality might play in the ethical discourse about PM. This Perspective reports the outcomes of a knowledge exchange fora with religious authorities in Singapore about data sharing for PM. While the exchange did not identify any foundational religious objections to PM, ethical concerns were raised about the possibility for private industry to profiteer from social resources and the potential for genetic discrimination by private health insurers. According to religious authorities in Singapore, sharing PM data with private industry will require a clear public benefit and robust data governance that incorporates principles of transparency, accountability and oversight., Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s41649-021-00180-4., (© The Author(s) 2021.)

Altering the human epigenome with gene-editing technology in attempt to treat a variety of diseases and conditions seems scientifically feasible. We explore some of the ethical and regulatory issues related to the clinical translation of human epigenetic editing arguing that such approaches should be considered akin to somatic therapies., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Governments are investing in precision medicine (PM) with the aim of improving healthcare through the use of genomic analyses and data analytics to develop tailored treatment approaches for individual patients. The success of PM is contingent upon clear public communications that engender trust and secure the social licence to collect and share large population-wide data sets because specific consent for each data re-use is impractical. Variation in the terminology used by different programmes used to describe PM may hinder clear communication and threaten trust. Language is used to create common understanding and expectations regarding precision medicine between researchers, clinicians and the volunteers. There is a need to better understand public interpretations of PM-related terminology. This paper reports on a qualitative study involving 24 focus group participants in the multi-lingual context of Singapore. The study explored how Singaporeans interpret and understand the terms 'precision medicine' and 'personalised medicine', and which term they felt more aptly communicates the concept and goals of PM. Results suggest that participants were unable to readily link the terms with this area of medicine and initially displayed preferences for the more familiar term of 'personalised'. The use of visual aids to convey key concepts resonated with participants, some of whom then indicated preferences for the term 'precision' as being a more accurate description of PM research. These aids helped to facilitate dialogue around the ethical and social value, as well as the risks, of PM. Implications for programme developers and policy makers are discussed., Competing Interests: Conflict of InterestThe authors declare no competing interests., (© The Author(s) 2021.)

Background: We aimed to examine the ethical concerns Singaporeans have about sharing health-data for precision medicine (PM) and identify suggestions for governance strategies. Just as Asian genomes are under-represented in PM, the views of Asian populations about the risks and benefits of data sharing are under-represented in prior attitudinal research., Methods: We conducted seven focus groups with 62 participants in Singapore from May to July 2019. They were conducted in three languages (English, Mandarin and Malay) and analysed with qualitative content and thematic analysis., Results: Four key themes emerged: nuanced understandings of data security and data sensitivity; trade-offs between data protection and research benefits; trust (and distrust) in the public and private sectors; and governance and control options. Participants were aware of the inherent risks associated with data sharing for research. Participants expressed conditional support for data sharing, including genomic sequence data and information contained within electronic medical records. This support included sharing data with researchers from universities and healthcare institutions, both in Singapore and overseas. Support was conditional on the perceived social value of the research and appropriate de-identification and data security processes. Participants suggested that a data sharing oversight body would help strengthen public trust and comfort in data research for PM in Singapore., Conclusion: Maintenance of public trust in data security systems and governance regimes can enhance participation in PM and data sharing for research. Contrary to themes in much prior research, participants demonstrated a sophisticated understanding of the inherent risks of data sharing, analysed trade-offs between risks and potential benefits of PM, and often adopted an international perspective.

The process for introducing and developing a program for teaching medical professionalism at the National University of Singapore, School of Medicine is outlined. Professionalism was recognised as embracing 'honesty and integrity,' 'responsibility and participation,' 'respect and sensitivity,' and 'compassion and empathy.' Those broad values are expressed as specific attitudes and behaviours that are taught and assessed throughout the course. Honesty and integrity, for example, are demonstrated by 'presenting original, authentic assignments' (in medical education); and 'accepting personal mistakes and honestly acknowledging them' (in clinical training and practice). Values and items of behaviour were drawn from the literature, and reviewed and refined to address needs identified within the Medical School. A broad spectrum of pre-clinical and clinical teachers contributed to this development. The program was reassessed to determine the extent to which it has been implemented and has evolved following its adoption. The results are confirming in that: the majority of recommendations have been implemented; the program has developed further; and is supported by ancillary student enrichment activities. Medical professionalism has been given prominence through all phases of the course. Nevertheless, challenges remain and particularly in the extent to which medical professionalism is taught and assessed in various clinical postings.

This column explores a recent health profession disciplinary case which throws light on the problems of unconventional interventions by medical practitioners under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act 2009 (Qld). The case involved "innovative" practices which were later found to have been scientifically unsupported, dangerous to patients and grounds for cancelling the health practitioner's registration. This column looks at common features of these kinds of cases in Australia and then examines recent attempts by the Medical Board of Australia to draft policy guidance around the use of unconventional practice in medicine. This column concludes with a number of changes to improve the effectiveness of the proposed policy., Competing Interests: None.

The prevalence of businesses selling autologous stem cell-based interventions to patients in Australia has raised serious concerns about how weaknesses in regulation have enabled the emergence of an industry that engages in aggressive marketing of unproven treatments to patients. Little is known about how patients experience this marketing and their subsequent interactions with practitioners. This paper reports results from 15 semistructured interviews with patients and carers, and also draws upon discussion conducted with patients, carers and family members (22 participants) in a workshop setting. We explore how Australian patients and carers understand and experience these interventions, and how their presumptions about the ethics of medical practice, and the regulatory environment in Australia have conditioned their preparedness to undergo unproven treatments.

Ethical decision-making frameworks assist in identifying the issues at stake in a particular setting and thinking through, in a methodical manner, the ethical issues that require consideration as well as the values that need to be considered and promoted. Decisions made about the use, sharing, and re-use of big data are complex and laden with values. This paper sets out an Ethics Framework for Big Data in Health and Research developed by a working group convened by the Science, Health and Policy-relevant Ethics in Singapore (SHAPES) Initiative. It presents the aim and rationale for this framework supported by the underlying ethical concerns that relate to all health and research contexts. It also describes a set of substantive and procedural values that can be weighed up in addressing these concerns, and a step-by-step process for identifying, considering, and resolving the ethical issues arising from big data uses in health and research. This Framework is subsequently applied in the papers published in this Special Issue. These papers each address one of six domains where big data is currently employed: openness in big data and data repositories, precision medicine and big data, real-world data to generate evidence about healthcare interventions, AI-assisted decision-making in healthcare, public-private partnerships in healthcare and research, and cross-sectoral big data., (© The Author(s) 2019.)

Artificial intelligence (AI) is set to transform healthcare. Key ethical issues to emerge with this transformation encompass the accountability and transparency of the decisions made by AI-based systems, the potential for group harms arising from algorithmic bias and the professional roles and integrity of clinicians. These concerns must be balanced against the imperatives of generating public benefit with more efficient healthcare systems from the vastly higher and accurate computational power of AI. In weighing up these issues, this paper applies the deliberative balancing approach of the Ethics Framework for Big Data in Health and Research (Xafis et al. 2019). The analysis applies relevant values identified from the framework to demonstrate how decision-makers can draw on them to develop and implement AI-assisted support systems into healthcare and clinical practice ethically and responsibly. Please refer to Xafis et al. (2019) in this special issue of the Asian Bioethics Review for more information on how this framework is to be used, including a full explanation of the key values involved and the balancing approach used in the case study at the end of this paper., (© The Author(s) 2019.)

Whilst the underlying principles of precision medicine are comparable across the globe, genomic references, health practices, costs and discrimination policies differ in Asian settings compared to the reported initiatives involving European-derived populations. We have addressed these variables by developing an evolving reference base of genomic and phenotypic data and a framework to return medically significant variants to consenting research participants applicable for the Asian context. Targeting 10,000 participants, over 2000 Singaporeans, with no known pre-existing health conditions, have consented to an extensive clinical health screen, family health history collection, genome sequencing and ongoing follow-up. Genomic variants in a subset of genes associated with Mendelian disorders and drug responses are analysed using an in-house bioinformatics pipeline. A multidisciplinary team reviews the classification of variants and a research report is generated. Medically significant variants are returned to consenting participants through a bespoke return-of-result genomics clinic. Variant validation and subsequent clinical referral are advised as appropriate. The design and implementation of this flexible learning framework enables a cohort of detailed phenotyping and genotyping of healthy Singaporeans to be established and the frequency of disease-causing variants in this population to be determined. Our findings will contribute to international precision medicine initiatives, bridging gaps with ethnic-specific data and insights from this understudied population., Competing Interests: Competing interestsS.S.J. is co-founder of Global Gene Corporation Pte Ltd. The remaining authors declare no competing interests.

The HUGO Committee on Ethics, Law and Society (CELS) undertook a Working Group exploration of the key ethical issues arising from genome sequencing in 2013. The Imagined Futures paper the group subsequently published proposed points to consider when applying genomic bioinformatics to data repositories used in genomic medicine and research ( http://www.hugo-international.org/Resources/Documents/CELS_Article-ImaginedFutures_2014.pdf ). Given the ever-increasing power to sequence the human genome rapidly and inexpensively-as well as trends toward "Big Data" and "Open Science"-we take this opportunity to update and refine the key findings of that paper.

We report on a roundtable event hosted in Singapore that sought to identify some of the ethical and regulatory challenges in translating autologous cell-based interventions, particularly those claiming to involve stem cells, into safe and effective therapies and to propose some solutions to encourage responsible innovation with these products. Challenges are identified in the three areas of cell manufacturing and processing, innovative uses of autologous cells in clinical practice and standards of evidence. Proposed solutions are discussed within a co-operative model of statutory laws and regulations that can enable product development with autologous cells and professional codes and standards that can encourage ethical conduct in clinical practice. Future research should be directed toward establishing regional networks for the development of internationally consistent standards in manufacturing and ethical codes of conduct for innovating with stem cells, and other autologous cells, and fostering ongoing exchange between jurisdictions., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Demands from patients, health-care professionals, and industry to streamline the market approval process for promising new therapies has prompted the introduction of programs that can provide more rapid access to stem cell-based products before evidence of safety and efficacy has been demonstrated in clinical trials. These products may be approved for marketing under "conditional authorizations," while uncertainty around safety and efficacy is reduced through the collection of clinical data in observational trials or registries. The rationale for conditional approval programs assumes that patients with unmet medical needs will benefit with rapid access to novel stem cell therapies. It also assumes that data gathered in actual clinical contexts is inherently better at reducing uncertainty than conventional clinical trial methods of demonstrating safety and efficacy. These assumptions may be overly optimistic and do not account for the broader societal burdens of prematurely releasing high-cost therapies with uncertain safety risks and benefits on to health-care markets. This essay focuses on the introduction of conditional approval programs for autologous somatic stem cell therapies and argues that these programs may conflict with, and potentially undermine, the normative commitments of regulatory agencies charged with promoting population health and protecting vulnerable groups from harm and exploitation. It concludes with suggestions of how programs designed to accelerate access to potentially helpful but experimental interventions could be reconfigured to be more equitable.

Background: Genomic profiling of malignant tumours has assisted clinicians in providing targeted therapies for many serious cancer-related illnesses. Although the characterisation of somatic mutations is the primary aim of tumour profiling for treatment, germline mutations may also be detected given the heterogenous origin of mutations observed in tumours. Guidance documents address the return of germline findings that have health implications for patients and their genetic relations. However, the implications of discovering a potential but unconfirmed germline finding from tumour profiling are yet to be fully explored. Moreover, as tumour profiling is increasingly applied in oncology, robust ethical frameworks are required to encourage large-scale data sharing and data aggregation linking molecular data to clinical outcomes, to further understand the role of genetics in oncogenesis and to develop improved cancer therapies., Results: This paper reports on the results of empirical research that is broadly aimed at developing an ethical framework for obtaining informed consent to return results from tumour profiling tests and to share the biomolecular data sourced from tumour tissues of cancer patients. Specifically, qualitative data were gathered from 36 semi-structured interviews with cancer patients and oncology clinicians at a cancer treatment centre in Singapore. The interview data indicated that patients had a limited comprehension of cancer genetics and implications of tumour testing. Furthermore, oncology clinicians stated that they lacked the time to provide in depth explanations of the tumour profile tests. However, it was accepted from both patients and oncologist that the return potential germline variants and the sharing of de-identified tumour profiling data nationally and internationally should be discussed and provided as an option during the consent process., Conclusions: Findings provide support for the return of tumour profiling results provided that they are accompanied with an adequate explanation from qualified personnel. They also support the use of broad consent regiments within an ethical framework that promotes trust and benefit sharing with stakeholders and provides accountability and transparency in the storage and sharing of biomolecular data for research.

In 2016, the Office of the State Coroner of New South Wales released its report into the death of an Australian woman, Sheila Drysdale, who had died from complications of an autologous stem cell procedure at a Sydney clinic. In this report, we argue that Mrs Drysdale's death was avoidable, and it was the result of a pernicious global problem of an industry exploiting regulatory systems to sell unproven and unjustified interventions with stem cells., Competing Interests: Competing interests: IK is a bone marrow transplant physician, chair of New South Wales Bone Marrow Transplant Network Long Term Follow-Up Working Group, board member of New South Wales Stem Cell Network and member of the National Health and Medical Research Council's Xenotransplantation Committee. No further competing interests to declare., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.)

Aim: This article examines online marketing practices of Japanese and Australian clinics offering putative autologous stem cell treatments. Materials & methods: We conducted google searches for keywords related to stem cell therapy and stem cell clinics in English and Japanese. Results: We identified websites promoting 88 point-of-sale clinics in Japan and 70 in Australia. Conclusion: Our findings provide further evidence of the rapid global growth in clinics offering unproven stem cell interventions. We also show that these clinics adopt strategies to promote their services as though they are consistent with evidentiary and ethical standards of science, research and medicine. Unless addressed, these practices risk harming not only vulnerable patients but also undermining public trust in science and medicine.

In 2014, the Japanese National Diet introduced new laws aimed at promoting the clinical translation of stem cells and regenerative medicine. The basic action of these laws is to allow the early introduction of regenerative medicine products into the Japanese market through an accelerated approval process, while providing patients with access to certain types of stem cell and cell-based therapies in the context of private clinical practice. While this framework appears to offer enormous opportunities for the translation of stem cell science, it raises ethical challenges that have not yet been fully explored. This paper critically analyzes this framework with respect to the prioritization of safety over clinical benefit, distributive justice and public trust in science and medicine. It is argued that the framework unfairly burdens patients and strained healthcare systems without any clear benefits, and may undermine the credibility of the regenerative medicine field as it emerges.

This paper considers the tensions created in genomic research by public and private for-profit ideals. Our intent is to strengthen the public good at a time when doing science is strongly motivated by market possibilities and opportunities. Focusing on the emergence of gene editing, and in particular CRISPR, we consider how commercialisation encourages hype and hope-a sense that only promise and idealism can achieve progress. At this rate, genomic research reinforces structures that promote, above all else, private interests, but that may attenuate conditions for the public good of science. In the first part, we situate genomics using the aphorism that 'on the shoulders of giants we see farther'; these giants are infrastructures and research cultures rather than individual 'heroes' of science. In this respect, private initiatives are not the only pivot for successful discovery, and indeed, fascination in those could impinge upon the fundamental role of public-supported discovery. To redress these circumstances, we define the extent to which progress presupposes research strategies that are for the public good. In the second part, we use a 'falling giant' narrative to illustrate the risks of over-indulging for-profit initiatives. We therefore offer a counterpoint to commercialised science, using three identifiable 'giants'-scientists, publics and cultures-to illustrate how the public good contributes to genomic discovery.

Cell and tissue-based products, such as autologous adult stem cells, are being prescribed by physicians across the world for diseases and illnesses that they have neither been approved for or been demonstrated as safe and effective in formal clinical trials. These doctors often form part of informal transnational networks that exploit differences and similarities in the regulatory systems across geographical contexts. In this paper, we examine the regulatory infrastructure of five geographically diverse but socio-economically comparable countries with the aim of identifying similarities and differences in how these products are regulated and governed within clinical contexts. We find that while there are many subtle technical differences in how these regulations are implemented, they are sufficiently similar that it is difficult to explain why these practices appear more prevalent in some countries and not in others. We conclude with suggestions for how international governance frameworks might be improved to discourage the exploitation of vulnerable patient populations while enabling innovation in the clinical application of cellular therapies.

Background: The avalanche of commentaries on CRISPR-Cas9 technology, a bacterial immune system modified to recognize any short DNA sequence, cut it out, and insert a new one, has rekindled hopes for gene therapy and other applications and raised criticisms of engineering genes in future generations., Sources of Data: This discussion draws on articles that emphasize ethics, identified partly through PubMed and Google, 2014-2016., Areas of Agreement: CRISPR-Cas9 has taken the pace and prospects for genetic discovery and applications to a high level, stoking anticipation for somatic gene engineering to help patients. We support a moratorium on germ line manipulation., Areas of Controversy: We place increased emphasis on the principle of solidarity and the public good. The genetic bases of some diseases are not thoroughly addressable with CRISPR-Cas9. We see no new ethical issues, compared with gene therapy and genetic engineering in general, apart from the explosive rate of findings. Other controversies include eugenics, patentability and unrealistic expectations of professionals and the public., Growing Points: Biggest issues are the void of research on human germ cell biology, the appropriate routes for oversight and transparency, and the scientific and ethical areas of reproductive medicine., Areas Timely for Developing Research: The principle of genomic solidarity and priority on public good should be a lens for bringing clarity to CRISPR debates. The valid claim of genetic exceptionalism supports restraint on experimentation in human germ cells, given the trans-generational dangers and the knowledge gap in germ cell biology., (© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com)

Background: One Health (OH) is an interdisciplinary collaborative approach to human and animal health that aims to break down conventional research and policy 'silos'. OH has been used to develop strategies for zoonotic Emerging Infectious Diseases (EID). However, the ethical case for OH as an alternative to more traditional public health approaches is largely absent from the discourse. To study the ethics of OH, we examined perceptions of the human health and ecological priorities for the management of zoonotic EID in the Southeast Asia country of Singapore., Methods: We conducted a mixed methods study using a modified Delphi technique with a panel of 32 opinion leaders and 11 semi-structured interviews with a sub-set of those experts in Singapore. Panellists rated concepts of OH and priorities for zoonotic EID preparedness planning using a series of scenarios developed through the study. Interview data were examined qualitatively using thematic analysis., Findings: We found that panellists agreed that OH is a cross-disciplinary collaboration among the veterinary, medical, and ecological sciences, as well as relevant government agencies encompassing animal, human, and environmental health. Although human health was often framed as the most important priority in zoonotic EID planning, our qualitative analysis suggested that consideration of non-human animal health and welfare was also important for an effective and ethical response. The panellists also suggested that effective pandemic planning demands regional leadership and investment from wealthier countries to better enable international cooperation., Conclusion: We argue that EID planning under an OH approach would benefit greatly from an ethical ecological framework that accounts for justice in human, animal, and environmental health., Competing Interests: One of the authors, Paul Tambyah, holds research grants from GSK, Sanofi-Pasteur, Fabentech and collects consultation fees from 3M and Johnson and Johnson, but all outside the submitted work. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials. None of the other authors have any conflicts of interest to declare.

Pandemic plans recommend phases of response to an emergent infectious disease (EID) outbreak, and are primarily aimed at preventing and mitigating human-to-human transmission. These plans carry presumptive weight and are increasingly being operationalized at the national, regional and international level with the support of the World Health Organization (WHO). The conventional focus of pandemic preparedness for EIDs of zoonotic origin has been on public health and human welfare. However, this focus on human populations has resulted in strategically important disciplinary silos. As the risks of zoonotic diseases have implications that reach across many domains outside traditional public health, including anthropological, environmental, and veterinary fora, a more inclusive ecological perspective is paramount for an effective response to future outbreaks., (© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Autologous adult stem cells (ASCs) are being administered by physicians for indications that have not been demonstrated as safe and effective in formal clinical trials. Examination of regulatory frameworks across five countries suggests that balancing the demands of research with clinical freedom has created structural weaknesses that are being exploited., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Over the last decade, stem cell research has generated an enormous amount of public, political and bioethical debate. These debates have overwhelmingly tended to focus on two moral issues: the moral status of human embryos and the duty to care for the sick and vulnerable. This preoccupation, especially on the question of moral status, has not only dichotomized the debate around two fundamentally incommensurable positions, it has come at the cost of other important issues largely being ignored. In highlighting some of the bioethical and regulatory deficiencies of this fixation, we draw on recent developments in the experimental use of autologous adult stem cells to argue for a more inclusive approach to the ethical issues surrounding stem cell research., (© 2012 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Singapore is legally restrictive when it comes to research involving minors. The age of majority is 21 and parental consent is required for participation in medical research. This article explores the age of majority and the issues related to obtaining consent for research in Singapore, focusing on "young adults" (17-21 years), using an example of a translational and clinical research project called the Longitudinal Youth at Risk Study (LYRIKS). It describes the unique legal and social conditions pertaining to the age of majority in Singapore, before presenting an argument for consideration as to whether the age of consent to participate in research should be reviewed. It concludes that rather than a set of doctrinaire rules for the age of participation in research, there should be an assessment of the kind of tasks that minors can assume themselves in respect to a specific project, and the degree of parental involvement.

A prevailing issue in clinical research is the duty clinicians have to treat or prevent the progression of disease during a study that they are conducting. While all clinical researchers have a duty of care for the patients who participate in clinical research, intervening at the onset or progression of disease may skew results and have a negative impact on the scientific validity of a study. Extreme examples of failures to intervene can be found in the Tuskegee syphilis study and in an attempt to determine if cervical smears were an accurate predictor of cancer, which was uncovered by the Cartwright Inquiry. However, the issue arises in all research where delay in intervention can cause harm. A current study in Singapore is investigating the significance of an 'ultra-high risk' state that may constitute the prodromal phase of psychosis. This project called 'The Longitudinal Youth at Risk Study' is potentially contentious because it is recruiting young people who are identified as being 'at risk' of developing psychosis. In this paper, the decision to offer treatment to all participants as well as a fast track for those who are assessed to have developed serious mental illness into treatment is discussed. It is argued that this approach is ethically justified because of the duty of care that is owed to research participants, and suggests that the principle of equipoise may be used to guide intervention decisions in other clinical research protocols.

Aims: This paper aims to provide an overview of the ethical issues that have been raised by The Longitudinal Youth at Risk Study, which is being led by the Institute of Mental Health in Singapore as part of a multi-centre and multinational study in translational and clinical research in psychosis. This project is designed to identify the biomarkers of the trajectory to psychosis. As well as providing insights into the psychopathology and psychophysiology of the disease, the study will prospectively identify those in the Singaporean population with an ultra-high risk of developing psychosis. The project will collect both observational and clinically relevant data from an at-risk group: adolescents and young adults., Methods: A normative analysis was used to consider the ethical issues that arise as a result of this study, its methods, sample population and clinical management policy., Results: The project was found to raise particular and sensitive ethical and legal issues relating to the conduct of research with vulnerable populations who may be entering the prodromal phase of psychosis. Issues raised included notions of consent, privacy, confidentiality, stigmatization, duty of care and therapeutic misconception., Conclusion: Whereas some of the issues raised by this study present with manageable solutions, others may be justifiable within the cultural context of Singapore and warrant further discussion., (© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd.)

In December 2006, the Australian Parliament liberalized regulation governing stem cell research. This decision and preceding legislative review generated considerable public debate, which centred on objections to the deliberate creation and destruction of human embryos for research purposes. This paper draws on qualitative research conducted on the public debate surrounding this policy episode. The aim of this research was to examine how science and scientific knowledge are mobilized by participants in these debates to support their arguments. Data were collected from 109 newspaper opinion editorials as well as 23 in-depth interviews and examined using qualitative content and thematic analysis. Results of this analysis depict science as a rhetorical, moral and political resource that provides opportunities for participants to gain legitimacy, negotiate meaning and assert authority in the public domain. The mobilization of science in public discourse is discussed along with suggestions that are aimed at encouraging greater transparency and inclusiveness in public debates around contested science and emergent technologies.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has sought an injunction to prevent a US-based company from offering an autologous adult stem cell treatment for musculoskeletal and spinal injuries. Given the alarming number of clinics promoting stem-cell-based interventions, the outcome of this case could have wide-ranging implications., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Public policy debates surrounding stem cell research are becoming increasingly more complex as governance considerations move beyond the moral status of human embryos. This complexity is evident in the public discourses surrounding these debates globally. This article draws on the results of an analysis conducted on the media coverage of a recent stem cell policy episode in the United States to demonstrate the complexity of public discourses surrounding stem cell research and to reflect upon similar debates in Australia. Observations made from the public discourses in California are reframed within the Australian context to discuss ways in which future public policy debates surrounding stem cell research may be enriched.