The Ethics of Stem Cell-Based Embryo-Like Structures : A Focus Group Study on the Perspectives of Dutch Professionals and Lay Citizens.

In order to study early human development while avoiding the burdens associated with human embryo research, scientists are redirecting their efforts towards so-called human embryo-like structures (hELS). hELS are created from clusters of human pluripotent stem cells and seem capable of mimicking early human development with increasing accuracy. Notwithstanding, hELS research finds itself at the intersection of historically controversial fields, and the expectation that it might be received as similarly sensitive is prompting proactive law reform in many jurisdictions, including the Netherlands. However, studies on the public perception of hELS research remain scarce. To help guide policymakers and fill this gap in the literature, we conducted an explorative qualitative study aimed at mapping the range of perspectives in the Netherlands on the creation and research use of hELS. This article reports on a subset of our findings, namely those pertaining to (the degrees of and requirements for) confidence in research with hELS and its regulation. Despite commonly found disparities in confidence on emerging biotechnologies, we also found wide consensus regarding the requirements for having (more) confidence in hELS research. We conclude by reflecting on how these findings could be relevant to researchers and (Dutch) policymakers when interpreted within the context of their limitations.

Responsible innovation in stem cell research: using responsibility as a strategy.

Responsible innovation has been introduced as an important condition for advancing the field of regenerative medicine. This is reflected in the frequent references to responsible research conduct and responsible innovation in guidelines and recommendations in academic literature. The meaning of responsibility, how responsibility could be fostered and the context in which responsibilities should be enacted, however, remain unclear. The goal of this paper is to clarify the concept of responsibility in stem cell research and to illustrate how this concept could inform strategies to deal effectively with the ethical implications of stem cell research. Responsibility can be dissected into four categories: responsibility-as-accountability, responsibility-as-liability, responsibility-as-an-obligation and responsibility-as-a-virtue. The authors focus on responsible research conduct and responsible innovation in general to move beyond the scope of research integrity and illustrate that different notions of responsibility have different implications for how stem cell research is organized.

Literature and guidelines mention that responsible innovation could help the field of stem cell research to deal with ethical challenges. However, in this literature and guidelines it does not become clear how 'responsibility' should be understood, how responsibilities are recognized, how responsibilities are shared and how someone could take responsibility. In this article, different types of responsibility are discussed: responsibility-as-accountability, responsibility-as-liability, responsibility-as-an-obligation and responsibility-as-a-virtue. The types are discussed according to how they are different from one another and how they can be used to organize stem cell research. It is shown that these different types of responsibility help not only with research integrity issues but also with societal and other types of ethical challenges.

Ethical implications of visual neuroprostheses-a systematic review.

Objective. The aim of this review was to systematically identify the ethical implications of visual neuroprostheses.Approach. A systematic search was performed in both PubMed and Embase using a search string that combined synonyms for visual neuroprostheses, brain-computer interfaces (BCIs), cochlear implants (CIs), and ethics. We chose to include literature on BCIs and CIs, because of their ethically relavant similarities and functional parallels with visual neuroprostheses.Main results. We included 84 articles in total. Six focused specifically on visual prostheses. The other articles focused more broadly on neurotechnologies, on BCIs or CIs. We identified 169 ethical implications that have been categorized under seven main themes: (a) benefits for health and well-being; (b) harm and risk; (c) autonomy; (d) societal effects; (e) clinical research; (f) regulation and governance; and (g) involvement of experts, patients and the public.Significance. The development and clinical use of visual neuroprostheses is accompanied by ethical issues that should be considered early in the technological development process. Though there is ample literature on the ethical implications of other types of neuroprostheses, such as motor neuroprostheses and CIs, there is a significant gap in the literature regarding the ethical implications of visual neuroprostheses. Our findings can serve as a starting point for further research and normative analysis.

How digital health affects the patient-physician relationship: An empirical-ethics study into the perspectives and experiences in obstetric care.

BACKGROUND: Digital health technologies are believed to change the patient-physician relationship. Such changes are still speculative, as there are no studies in which both patients and health care professionals are asked for their experiences and perspectives on how digital health affects the patient-physician relationship. METHODS: We performed a qualitative interview study (n = 25) to identify relevant aspects of the patient-physician relationship as perceived by both health care professionals (n = 14) and patients (n = 11) of a digital monitoring platform for hypertensive disorders related to pregnancy. We focus on roles, responsibilities and medical decision-making. RESULTS: Digital monitoring helps patients to better understand their own condition and contributes to shared decision-making in terms of information exchange. Yet for clinical decision-making both patients and health care professionals argue that health care professionals should stay in the lead. The collected data is by some health care professionals considered hard data that allows objective and more standardized decision-making, while others believe digital monitoring requires further interpretation in order to personalize the clinical care to the patient. CONCLUSION: Digital technologies have subtle, yet double-edged, effects on the patient-physician relationship in terms of roles and responsibilities and the value addressed to the digital data. These insights let to 6 ethical recommendations for the implementation of digital health technologies to replace and support clinical care.

Fair allocation of cryopreserved donor oocytes: towards an accountable process.

A growing number of people desire ART with cryopreserved donor oocytes. The allocation of these oocytes to couples and mothers to be is a 2-fold process. The first step is to select a pool of recipients. The second step is to decide who should be treated first. Prioritizing recipients is critical in settings where demand outstrips supply. So far, the issue of how to fairly allocate cryopreserved donor oocytes has been poorly addressed. Our ethical analysis aims to support clinics involved in allocation decisions by formulating criteria for recipient selection irrespective of supply (Part I) and recipient prioritization in case supply is limited (Part II). Relevant criteria for recipient selection are: a need for treatment to experience parenthood; a reasonable chance for successful treatment; the ability to safely undergo an oocyte donation pregnancy; and the ability to establish a stable and loving relationship with the child. Recipients eligible for priority include those who: have limited time left for treatment; have not yet experienced parenthood; did not undergo previous treatment with cryopreserved donor oocytes; and contributed to the supply of donor oocytes by bringing a donor to the bank. While selection criteria function as a threshold principle, we argue that the different prioritization criteria should be carefully balanced. Since specifying and balancing the allocation criteria undoubtedly raises a moral dispute, a fair and legitimate allocation process is warranted (Part III). We argue that allocation decisions should be made by a multidisciplinary committee, staffed by relevant experts with a variety of perspectives. Furthermore, the committees' reasoning behind decisions should be transparent and accessible to those affected: clinicians, donors, recipients and children born from treatment. Insight into the reasons that underpin allocation decisions allows these stakeholders to understand, review and challenge decisions, which is also known as accountability for reasonableness.

Should germline genome editing be allowed? The effect of treatment characteristics on public acceptability.

STUDY QUESTION: To what extent do characteristics of germline genome editing (GGE) determine whether the general public supports permitting the clinical use of GGE? SUMMARY ANSWER: The risk that GGE would cause congenital abnormalities had the largest effect on support for allowing GGE, followed by effectiveness of GGE, while costs, the type of application (disease or enhancement) and the effect on child well-being had moderate effects. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Scientific progress on GGE has increased the urgency of resolving whether and when clinical application of GGE may be ethically acceptable. Various expert bodies have suggested that the treatment characteristics will be key in determining whether GGE is acceptable. For example, GGE with substantial risks (e.g. 15% chance of a major congenital abnormality) may be acceptable to prevent a severe disease but not to enhance non-medical characteristics or traits of an otherwise healthy embryo (e.g. eye colour or perhaps in the future more complex traits, such as intelligence). While experts have called for public engagement, it is unclear whether and how much the public acceptability of GGE is affected by the treatment characteristics proposed by experts. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: The vignette-based survey was disseminated in 2018 among 1857 members of the Dutch general public. An online research panel was used to recruit a sample representing the adult Dutch general public. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: A literature review identified the key treatment characteristics of GGE: the effect on the well-being of the future child, use for disease or enhancement, risks for the future child, effectiveness (here defined as the chance of a live birth, assuming that if the GGE was not successful, the embryo would not be transferred), cost and availability of alternative treatments/procedures to prevent the genetic disease or provide enhancement (i.e. preimplantation genetic testing (PGT)), respectively. For each treatment characteristic, 2-3 levels were defined to realistically represent GGE and its current alternatives, donor gametes and ICSI with PGT. Twelve vignettes were created by fractional factorial design. A multinominal logit model assessed how much each treatment characteristic affected participants' choices. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The 1136 respondents (response rate 61%) were representative of the Dutch adult population in several demographics. Respondents were between 18 and 89 years of age. When no alternative treatment/procedure is available, the risk that GGE would cause (other) congenital abnormalities had the largest effect on whether the Dutch public supported allowing GGE (coefficient = -3.07), followed by effectiveness (coefficient = 2.03). Costs (covered by national insurance, coefficient = -1.14), the type of application (disease or enhancement; coefficient = -1.07), and the effect on child well-being (coefficient = 0.97) had similar effects on whether GGE should be allowed. If an alternative treatment/procedure (e.g. PGT) was available, participants were not categorically opposed to GGE, however, they were strongly opposed to using GGE for enhancement (coefficient = -3.37). The general acceptability of GGE was higher than participants' willingness to personally use it (P < 0.001). When participants considered whether they would personally use GGE, the type of application (disease or enhancement) was more important, whereas effectiveness and costs (covered by national insurance) were less important than when they considered whether GGE should be allowed. Participants who were male, younger and had lower incomes were more likely to allow GGE when no alternative treatment/procedure is available. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Some (e.g. ethnic, religious) minorities were not well represented. To limit complexity, not all characteristics of GGE could be included (e.g. out-of-pocket costs), therefore, the views gathered from the vignettes reflect only the choices presented to the respondents. The non-included characteristics could be connected to and alter the importance of the studied characteristics. This would affect how closely the reported coefficients reflect 'real-life' importance. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This study is the first to quantify the substantial impact of GGE's effectiveness, costs (covered by national insurance), and effect on child well-being on whether the public considered GGE acceptable. In general, the participants were strikingly risk-averse, in that they weighed the risks of GGE more heavily than its benefits. Furthermore, although only a single study in one country, the results suggests that-if sufficiently safe and effective-the public may approve of using GGE (presumably combined with PGT) instead of solely PGT to prevent passing on a disease. The reported public views can serve as input for future consideration of the ethics and governance of GGE. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): Young Academy of the Royal Dutch Academy of Sciences (UPS/RB/745), Alliance Grant of the Amsterdam Reproduction and Development Research Institute (2017-170116) and National Institutes of Health Intramural Research Programme. No competing interests. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

The ethics of embryo donation: what are the moral similarities and differences of surplus embryo donation and double gamete donation?

Over the years, the demand for ART with donated embryos has increased. Treatment can be performed using donated 'surplus embryos' from IVF treatment or with embryos intentionally created through so-called 'double gamete donation'. Embryo donation is particularly sensitive because treatment results in the absence of a genetic link between the parent(s) and the child, creating complex family structures, including full genetic siblings living in another family in the case of surplus embryo donation. In this paper, we explore the ethical acceptability of embryo donation in light of the similarities and differences between surplus embryo donation and double gamete donation. We will argue that no overriding objections to either form of embryo donation exist. First of all, ART with donated embryos respects patients' reproductive autonomy by allowing them to experience gestational parenthood. It also respects IVF patients' reproductive autonomy by providing an additional option to discarding or donating surplus embryos to research. Second, an extensive body of empirical research has shown that a genetic link between parent and child is not a condition for a loving caring relationship between parent(s) and child. Third, the low moral status of a pre-implantation embryo signifies no moral duty for clinics to first use available surplus embryos or to prevent the development of (more) surplus embryos through double gamete donation. Fourth, there is no reason to assume that knowledge of having (full or half) genetically related persons living elsewhere provides an unacceptable impact on the welfare of donor-conceived offspring, existing children of the donors, and their respective families. Thus, patients and clinicians should discuss which form of ART would be suitable in their specific situation. To guarantee ethically sound ART with donated embryos certain conditions have to be met. Counselling of IVF patients should involve a discussion on the destination of potential surplus embryos. When counselling donors and recipient(s) a discussion of the significance of early disclosure of the child's mode of conception, the implications of having children raised in families with whom they share no genetic ties, expectations around information-exchange and contact between donor and recipient families or genetically related siblings is warranted. Importantly, conclusions are mainly drawn from results of empirical studies on single gamete donation families. To evaluate the welfare of families created through surplus embryo donation or double gamete donation additional empirical research on these particular families is warranted.

If it ain't broke don't fix it? Ethics of splinting deformed newborn ears.

Neonatal ear splinting is a proven and safe method to mold deformed ears into a more common shape. Based on our earlier studies, splinting is recommended only before the age of six weeks and preferably within the first week after birth. This can be done by initiating a system in which this intervention is actively proposed to parents. In this paper, we ethically evaluate such a system. By molding perfectly healthy newborn ears, we reach the boundary between treatment and enhancement. A key question is, therefore, whether we could classify neonatal ear splinting as a therapy. On the level of the individual, the advantages outweigh the drawbacks, but on the level of society, it is more complicated. Making ear deformities a part of official national screening programs fails to meet WHO criteria. Moreover, by systematically offering ear molding, professionals may be promoting guilt or fear of missing the opportunity. Additionally, it could affect societal attitudes toward cosmetic deformities. However, if we argue that on the individual level infants may benefit from ear splinting, then active detection of ear deformities allows parents to choose in a timely way from the full range of options, including splinting and a wait-and-see approach. We are inclined to optimally inform parents without setting up a full-blown public health program. The extent to which it is possible to timely offer splints to parents of newborns depends on the infrastructure of health care systems. The key will be for everyone involved, public or commercial, to responsibly educate and facilitate.

Stakeholders views on the ethical aspects of oocyte banking for third-party assisted reproduction: a qualitative interview study with donors, recipients and professionals.

STUDY QUESTION: What are the moral considerations held by donors, recipients and professionals towards the ethical aspects of the intake and distribution of donor bank oocytes for third-party assisted reproduction? SUMMARY ANSWER: Interviews with oocyte donors, oocyte recipients and professionals demonstrate a protective attitude towards the welfare of the donor and the future child. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The scarcity of donor oocytes challenges the approach towards the many ethical aspects that arise in establishing and operating an oocyte bank for third-party assisted reproduction. Including experiences and moral considerations originating from practice provides useful insight on how to overcome these challenges. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: The project was set-up as a qualitative interview study and took place between October 2016 and August 2017. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We conducted 25 semi-structured interviews with professionals engaged in the practice of oocyte banking (n = 10), recipients of donor oocytes (n = 7) and oocyte donors (n = 8). Key themes were formulated by means of a thematic analysis. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Based on the interviews, we formulated four main themes describing stakeholders' views regarding the ethical aspects of the intake and distribution of donor bank oocytes. First, respondents articulated that when selecting donors and recipients, healthcare workers should prevent donors from making a wrong decision and safeguard the future child's well-being by minimizing health risks and selecting recipients based on their parental capabilities. Second, they proposed to provide a reasonable compensation and to increase societal awareness on the scarcity of donor oocytes to diminish barriers for donors. Third, respondents considered the prioritization of recipients in case of scarcity a difficult choice, because they are all dependent on donor oocytes to fulfil their wish for a child. They emphasized that treatment attempts should be limited, but at least include one embryo transfer. Fourth and finally, the importance of good governance of oocyte banks was mentioned, including a homogenous policy and the facilitation of exchange of experiences between oocyte banks. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The possibility of selection bias exists, because we interviewed donors and recipients who were selected according to the criteria currently employed in the clinics. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Respondents' moral considerations regarding the ethical aspects of the intake and distribution of donor oocytes demonstrate a protective attitude towards the welfare of the donor and the future child. At the same time, respondents also questioned whether such a (highly) protective attitude was justified. This finding may indicate there is room for reconsidering strategies for the collection and distribution of donor bank oocytes. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study was funded by ZonMw: The Dutch Organization for Health Research and Development (Grant number 70-73000-98-200). A.M.E.B. and B.C.J.M.F. are the initiators of the UMC Utrecht oocyte bank. J.J.P.M.P. is the director of the MCK Fertility Centre. IMC is working as a gynaecologist at the AMC Amsterdam oocyte bank. During the most recent 5-year period, BCJM Fauser has received fees or grant support from the following organizations (in alphabetic order): Actavis/Watson/Uteron, Controversies in Obstetrics & Gynaecologist (COGI), Dutch Heart Foundation, Dutch Medical Research Counsel (ZonMW), Euroscreen/Ogeda, Ferring, London Womens Clinic (LWC), Merck Serono (GFI), Myovant, Netherland Genomic Initiative (NGI), OvaScience, Pantharei Bioscience, PregLem/Gedeon Richter/Finox, Reproductive Biomedicine Online (RBMO), Roche, Teva and World Health Organization (WHO). The authors have no further competing interests to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Ethics in musculoskeletal regenerative medicine; guidance in choosing the appropriate comparator in clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Regenerative Medicine (RM) techniques aimed at the musculoskeletal system are increasingly translated to clinical trials and patient care. This revolutionary era in science raises novel ethical challenges. One of these challenges concerns the appropriate choice of the comparator in (randomized controlled) trials, including the ethically contentious use of sham procedures. To date, only general guidelines regarding the choice of the comparator exist. OBJECTIVE: To provide specific guidelines for clinical trial comparator choice in musculoskeletal RM. METHODS: In this manuscript, we discuss the ethics of comparator selection in RM trials. First, we make a classification of RM interventions according to different health states from disease prevention, return to normal health, postponing RM treatment, supplementing RM treatment, substituting RM treatment, improving RM outcome, and slowing progression. Subsequently, per objective, the accompanying ethical points to consider are evaluated with support from the available literature. RESULTS: a sham procedure is demonstrated to be an ethically acceptable comparator in RM trials with certain objectives, but less appropriate for musculoskeletal RM interventions that aim at preventing disease or substituting a surgical treatment. The latter may be compared to 'standard of care'. CONCLUSION: From a scientific perspective, choosing the correct comparator based on ethical guidelines is a step forward in the success of musculoskeletal RM.

Privacy in Big Data psychiatric and behavioural research: A multiple-case study.

In Big Data health research, concerns have risen about privacy and data protection. While the ethical and legal discussion about these issues is ongoing, so is research practice. The aim of this qualitative case study is to gain more insight into how these concerns are currently dealt with in practice. For this multiple-case study, the YOUth cohort, a longitudinal cohort focusing on psychosocial development, and Big Data Psychiatry, a pilot study in Big Data analytics on psychiatric health data, were selected. A broad range of relevant documents were collected and semi-structured interviews with stakeholders were conducted. Data were coded, studied and divided into themes during an iterative analytical process. Three themes emerged: abandoning anonymisation, reconfiguring participant control, and the search for guidance and expertise. Overall, the findings show that it takes considerable effort to take privacy and data protection norms into account in a Big Data health research initiative, especially when individual participant level data need to be linked or enriched. By embracing the complexity of the law in an early phase, setbacks could be prevented, the existing flexibility within the law could be utilised, and systems or organisations could be designed and constructed to take relevant rules into account. Our paper illustrates that a close collaboration of experts with different backgrounds within the initiative may be necessary to be able to successfully navigate this process.

Ethics of oocyte banking for third-party assisted reproduction: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The demand for donor oocytes has increased dramatically over the years. Today people in need of ART with the use of donor oocytes can appeal to commercial or public donor oocyte banks. The introduction of oocyte banks has shed a new light on the practice of ART using donor oocytes. The establishment and maintenance of oocyte banks should be sensitive to the ethical considerations. However, it is currently unclear which ethical aspects have to be taken into account. OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE: The aim of this article is to identify the ethical aspects of establishing and maintaining oocyte banks for third-party ART. SEARCH METHODS: A systematic search was performed in July 2016 and February 2017 in both PubMed and Embase using a search string that combined synonyms for oocytes, donation or banking, reproductive care and ethics. We included a wide variety of English-language articles with a reasoned description of ethical aspects or moral considerations on oocyte donation or banking for third-party ART. OUTCOMES: The practice of oocyte banking consists of three components, namely, the intake, storage and distribution of donor oocytes, and each is associated with multiple ethical challenges. The majority of the literature discusses ethical aspects with regard to the intake of donor oocytes, taking into account both the interests of the donor and those of the potential child. Ethical aspects related to the donor are the risks and psychosocial impact of donation, motivations and compensation in donor recruitment, and requirements for informed consent. Ethical aspects related to the potential child are 2-fold: first, the welfare standard and the selection of donors, and second, anonymity and disclosure. Ethical aspects of storing donor oocytes for ART are quality standards, confidentiality, issues of ownership and control, and international transport of donor oocytes. Ethical aspects of the distribution of donor oocytes concern the selection of recipients and the acceptability of treatment of 'non-traditional' families in particular, prioritization of recipients in case of scarcity, cross-border reproductive care, matching of recipients and donor oocytes, informed consent and counselling for recipients. WIDER IMPLICATIONS: Our review demonstrates that multiple ethical aspects have to be taken into account when establishing and maintaining an oocyte bank. Yet, for many of these aspects there is no consensus regarding what approach should be employed. Remarkably, the existing literature focuses mainly on ethical aspects related to the intake of donor oocytes, while aspects related to storage and distribution of donor oocytes are less often addressed. An important gap in the existing literature should therefore be acknowledged. To conclude, our findings can serve as a starting point for clinicians in the field of ART, to conceptualize what challenges arise when establishing and maintaining oocyte banks for third-party ART. The review may also stimulate policy makers to set up a trustworthy and adaptive governance structure for the intake, storage and distribution of donor oocytes.

Managing unsolicited findings in genomics: A qualitative interview study with cancer patients.

OBJECTIVE: Next-generation sequencing (NGS) is increasingly being employed in the context of personalized cancer treatment. Anticipating unsolicited findings that may arise during a NGS procedure is a key consideration; however, little is known about cancer patients' intentions, needs, and preferences concerning the return of unsolicited findings. METHODS: A qualitative design using individual semi-structured interviews with 24 cancer patients was utilized to explore patients' decisions on whether to receive unsolicited findings from NGS. These interviews were subsequently analyzed using the constant comparative method to develop codes and themes. RESULTS: We identified 4 interrelated themes that emerged in the context of the return of unsolicited findings. First, we describe how cancer patients expressed a strong need to control their lives. Second, we show the importance of family dynamics. Third, the NGS procedure regarding unsolicited findings is perceived as cognitively complex, and fourth, the procedure is also considered emotionally complex. CONCLUSIONS: The results of our study contribute to a better understanding of what cancer patients consider important and what may motivate and influence them when making decisions on the disclosure of unsolicited findings following NGS. We show how Joel Feinberg's classification of autonomy may help clinicians to better understand cancer patients' desire for autonomous decision making while also acknowledging the emotional and cognitive difficulties regarding the disclosure of unsolicited findings. These insights could be helpful for clinicians to guide patients through this complex process.

Reasons for being in favour of or against genome modification: a survey of the Dutch general public.

STUDY QUESTION: What are the general public's reasons for being in favour of or against the use of genome modification for five potential applications? SUMMARY ANSWER: Overall, 43 reasons for being in favour, 45 reasons for being against as well as 26 conditional reasons for the use of genome modification were identified. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Various applications of somatic genome modification are progressing towards clinical introduction and several recent studies have reported on germline genome modification. This has incited a debate on ethical and legal implications and acceptability. There is a growing plea to involve the general public earlier on in the developmental process of science and (bio)technology including genome modification. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: In April 2016, a cross-sectional survey was launched online among the Dutch general public. A documentary on genome modification on public television and calls in social media invited viewers and non-viewers, respectively, to participate. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS: The questionnaire introduced five potential future applications of genome modification: modified wheat for individuals with gluten intolerance; somatic modification for individuals with neuromuscular diseases; germline modification to prevent passing on a neuromuscular disease; germline modification to introduce resistance to HIV; and germline modification to increase intelligence. Participants were asked to indicate whether and why they would make use of genome modification in these scenarios. The reasons mentioned were analysed through content analysis by two researchers independently. The proportion of respondents that was willing to modify was described per scenario and associations with respondent characteristics were analysed. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The survey was completed by 1013 participants. Forty-three reasons for being in favour, 45 reasons for being against as well as 26 conditional reasons for the use of genome modification were identified. These could be categorized into 14 domains: safety of the individuals concerned; effectiveness; quality of life of the individuals concerned; existence of a clinical need or an alternative; biodiversity and ecosystems; animal homo sapiens (i.e. relating to effects on humans as a species); human life and dignity; trust in regulation; justice; costs; slippery slope; argument of nature; parental rights and duties; and (reproductive) autonomy. Participants' willingness to use genome modification was dependent on the application: most participants would eat modified wheat if gluten intolerant (74%), would use genome modification to cure his/her own neuromuscular disease (85%) and would apply germline modification to prevent passing on this neuromuscular disease (66%). A minority would apply germline modification to introduce resistance to HIV (30%) or increase intelligence (16%). Being young (odds ratio (OR) = 0.98 per year increase), being male (OR = 2.38), and having watched the documentary (OR = 1.82) were associated with being willing to apply genome modification in more scenarios. LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: Inquiring for reasons through open questions in a survey allowed for a larger sample size and intuitive responses but resulted in less depth than traditional face-to-face interviews. As the survey was disseminated through social media, the sample is not representative of the overall Dutch population, and hence the quantitative results should not be interpreted as such. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Further public consultation and a more in-depth ethical and societal debate on principles and conditions for responsible use of (germline) genome modification is required prior to future clinical introduction. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: Funded by the University of Amsterdam and University Medical Centre Utrecht. No conflict of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Not applicable.

Innovation in neurosurgery: less than IDEAL? A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Surgical innovation is different from the introduction of novel pharmaceuticals. To help address this, in 2009 the IDEAL Collaboration (Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, Long-term follow-up) introduced the five-stage framework for surgical innovation. To evaluate the framework feasibility for novel neurosurgical procedure introduction, two innovative surgical procedures were examined: the endoscopic endonasal approach for skull base meningiomas (EEMS) and the WovenEndobridge (WEB device) for endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms. METHODS: The published literature on EEMS and WEB devices was systematically reviewed. Identified studies were classified according to the IDEAL framework stage. Next, studies were evaluated for possible categorization according to the IDEAL framework. RESULTS: Five hundred seventy-six papers describing EEMS were identified of which 26 papers were included. No prospective studies were identified, and no studies reported on ethical approval or patient informed consent for the innovative procedure. Therefore, no clinical studies could be categorized according to the IDEAL Framework. For WEB devices, 6229 articles were screened of which 21 were included. In contrast to EEMS, two studies were categorized as 2a and two as 2b. CONCLUSION: The results of this systematic review demonstrate that both EEMS and WEB devices were not introduced according to the (later developed in the case of EEMS) IDEAL framework. Elements of the framework such as informed consent, ethical approval, and rigorous outcomes reporting are important and could serve to improve the quality of neurosurgical research. Alternative study designs and the use of big data could be useful modifications of the IDEAL framework for innovation in neurosurgery.

Ethical considerations in the translation of regenerative biofabrication technologies into clinic and society.

Biofabrication technologies have the potential to improve healthcare by providing highly advanced and personalized biomedical products for research, treatment and prevention. As the combining of emerging techniques and integrating various biological and synthetic components becomes increasingly complex, it is important that relevant stakeholders anticipate the translation of biofabricated 3D tissue products into patients and society. Ethics is sometimes regarded as a brake on scientific progress, yet from our perspective, ethics in parallel with research anticipates societal impacts of emerging technologies and stimulates responsible innovation. For the ethical assessment, the biofabrication field benefits from similarities to regenerative medicine and an increasing ethical awareness in the development of tissue-engineered products. However, the novelty of the technology itself, the increase in attainable structural complexity, and the potential for automation and personalization are distinguishing facets of biofabrication that call for a specific exploration of the ethics of biofabrication. This review aims to highlight important points of existing ethical discussions, as well as to call attention to emerging issues specific to 3D biofabrication in bench and bedside research and the translation to society.

Ethics of modifying the mitochondrial genome.

Recent preclinical studies have shown the feasibility of specific variants of nuclear transfer to prevent mitochondrial DNA disorders. Nuclear transfer could be a valuable reproductive option for carriers of mitochondrial mutations. A clinical application of nuclear transfer, however, would entail germ-line modification, more specifically a germ-line modification of the mitochondrial genome. One of the most prominent objections against germ-line modification is the fear that it would become possible to alter 'essential characteristics' of a future person, thereby possibly violating the child's right to an open future. As only the nuclear DNA would contain the ingredients for individual characteristics, modification of the mtDNA is often considered less controversial than modification of the nuclear DNA. This paper discusses the tenability of this dichotomy. After having clarified the concept of germ-line modification, it argues that modification of the mtDNA is not substantively different from modification of the nuclear DNA in terms of its effects on the identity of the future person. Subsequently the paper assesses how this conclusion affects the moral evaluation of nuclear transfer to prevent mtDNA disorders. It concludes that the moral acceptability of germ-line modification does not depend on whether it alters the identity of the future child-all germ-line modifications do-but on whether it safeguards the child's right to an open future. If nuclear transfer to prevent mtDNA disorders becomes safe and effective, then dismissing it because it involves germ-line modification is unjustified.