Trajectories of biomedical research leading to Nobel Prize-winning discoveries.

Significant advancements in public health come from scientific discoveries, but more are needed to meet the ever-growing societal needs. Examining the best practices of outstanding scientists may help develop future researchers and lead to more discoveries. This study compared the comprehensive work of 49 Nobel laureates in Physiology or Medicine from 2000 to 2019 to a matched control of National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded biomedical investigators. Our unique data set, comprising 11,737 publications, 571 US patents, and 1693 NIH research awards produced by pre-Nobel laureates, was compared to a similar data set of control researchers. Compared to control researchers, pre-Nobel laureates produce significantly more publications annually (median = 5.66; interquartile range [IQR] = 5.16); significantly fewer coauthors per publication (median = 3.32; IQR = 1.95); consistently higher Journal Impact Factor publications (median = 12.04; IQR = 6.83); and substantially more patents per researcher (median = 5; IQR = 14). Such differences arose from nearly identical cumulative NIH award budgets of pre-Nobel laureates (median $25.3 M) and control researchers. Nobel laureates are neither hyper-prolific (>72 papers per year) nor hyper-funded (>$100 M cumulative). An academic age-specific trajectory graph allows aspiring researchers to compare their productivity and collaboration patterns to those of pre-Nobel laureates.

Personal rights over public Health: Anti-vaccine rhetoric in the Texas Legislature.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, there was an observed increase in anti-vaccine sentiment linked with requirements for the vaccines. But how did these ideas impact the politics of vaccines? In this paper, the authors analyze witness statements from the 2021 Texas Legislative Session during vaccine-related hearings. Specifically, the research focused on five hearings for bills that related to vaccine requirements or vaccine transparency laws filed during the 2021Texas Legislative Session and witnesses who opposed these measures. From the 128 witnesses cataloged and analyzed, we found 84 witnesses opposed to vaccines. Medical freedom and the right to opt-out of a medical procedure as well as concerns about vaccine safety and effectiveness were most frequently used by witnesses to justify their stance against vaccine requirements or vaccines. While some witnesses were opposed to all vaccines, most focused their objections on the COVID-19 vaccine specifically.

US state laws on medical freedom and investigational stem cell procedures: a call to focus on state-based legislation.

The premature marketing of investigational stem cell interventions (SCIs) is a growing market in the US. Several US states have passed legislation to permit and promote unproven and experimental SCIs for individuals with terminal or chronic diseases. These SCI medical freedom laws, which are largely based on right-to-try legislation, increase access to experimental SCIs with little to no oversight. They undermine federal regulatory authority and can compromise patient safety and informed decision-making. SCI medical freedom laws have gone largely unnoticed by scientific societies interested in the responsible translation of stem cell medicine. In this article, we analyze state SCI medical freedom laws and describe their detrimental impact on patients and society. We contend that scientific and medical societies are uniquely poised to advocate against state-based policy promoting unproven SCIs but recognize resource and other constraints to advocate for or against legislation in 50 states. We recommend societies establish coalitions and share resources to address state-based SCI medical freedom laws and other legislation surrounding unproven SCIs.

Transparency in controversial research: A review of human embryo research publication ethical disclosure statements.

In 2021, the International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR) released updated guidelines that included human embryo research guidance. Requiring ethics statements in publications using human embryos is one way to verify adherence to these guidelines. A review of top-tier biomedical journal requirements identified only one publisher that requires a human embryo statement. A review of articles using human embryos from top-tier biomedical journals found that all contain some form of ethics statement, but they differ in content and location. Requiring ethics statements with specific elements could improve transparency and adherence to research guidelines.

Ethical, legal, regulatory, and policy issues concerning embryoids: a systematic review of the literature.

Recent advances in methods to culture pluripotent stem cells to model human development have resulted in entities that increasingly have recapitulated advanced stages of early embryo development. These entities, referred to by numerous terms such as embryoids, are becoming more sophisticated and could resemble human embryos ever more closely as research progresses. This paper reports a systematic review of the ethical, legal, regulatory, and policy questions and concerns found in the literature concerning human embryoid research published from 2016 to 2022. We identified 56 papers that use 53 distinct names or terms to refer to embryoids and four broad categories of ethical, legal, regulatory, or policy considerations in the literature: research justifications/benefits, ethical significance or moral status, permissible use, and regulatory and oversight challenges. Analyzing the full range of issues is a critical step toward fostering more robust ethical, legal, and social implications research in this emerging area and toward developing appropriate oversight.

Can we do that here? An analysis of US federal and state policies guiding human embryo and embryoid research.

Recent technological advances have helped scientists understand early human development. However, scientists' ability to fully explore their potential comes in conflict with national and state-level policies in the USA. In 2016, for the first time, researchers were able to grow human embryos in culture up to 14 days but stopped because of scientific and legal limits. Other researchers have used stem cells in culture to create organized models of early human development, known as embryoids or cell-based embryo models. In this paper, we review federal and state laws that affect US human embryo and embryoid research. While federal policies focus on funding, state laws are often associated with human embryonic stem cells, abortion, fetal tissue research, and reproductive cloning. Of the 29 states with laws impacting human embryo research, only 11 states ban it, and none address embryoids directly, although five states limit aspects of this research. Overall, this complicated landscape suggests that additional national guidance would help scientists and the public navigate these controversial areas of research, however, it is unlikely to happen, considering the lack of past progress determining embryo research policy.

Unproven stem cell interventions: A global public health problem requiring global deliberation.

The unproven stem cell intervention (SCI) industry is a global health problem. Despite efforts of some nations, the industry continues to flourish. In this paper, we call for a global approach and the establishment of a World Health Organization (WHO) Expert Advisory Committee on Regenerative Medicine to tackle this issue and provide guidance. The WHO committee can harmonize national regulations; promote regulatory approaches responsive to unmet patient needs; and formulate an education campaign against misinformation. Fostering an international dialog and developing recommendations that can be adopted by member states would effectively address the global market of unproven SCIs.

Stem cell-based models of embryos: The need for improved naming conventions.

Stem cell-based models of embryos are known by various names, with different naming conventions, leading to confusion regarding their composition and potential. We propose the need for a general term for the field to promote public engagement and the development of a systematic nomenclature system to differentiate between specific models.

Rethinking Human Embryo Research Policies.

It now seems technically feasible to culture human embryos beyond the "fourteen-day limit," which has the potential to increase scientific understanding of human development and perhaps improve infertility treatments. The fourteen-day limit was adopted as a compromise but subsequently has been considered an ethical line. Does it remain relevant in light of technological advances permitting embryo maturation beyond it? Should it be changed and, if so, how and why? What justifications would be necessary to expand the limit, particularly given that doing so would violate some people's moral commitments regarding human embryos? Robust stakeholder engagement preceded adoption of the fourteen-day limit and should arguably be part of efforts to reassess it. Such engagement could also consider the need for enhanced oversight of human embryo research. In the meantime, developing and implementing reliable oversight systems should help foster high-quality research and public confidence in it.

International scientific collaborative activities and barriers to them in eight societies.

Scientific research increasingly requires international collaboration among scientists. Less is known, however, about the barriers that impede such collaboration. In this pioneering study, more than 9000 scientists from eight societies - the United States, the United Kingdom, India, Italy, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Turkey, and France - were surveyed to gauge scientists' attitudes and experiences. While most scientists claimed international collaboration was important, their actual participation in such collaborations was much lower. We identified the prevalence rates of three types of barriers (political, logistical, and cultural) based on categories developed from previous work. In addition, we identified nine additional categories of barriers. Key barriers to collaboration that scientists identified included lack of funding for international work, restrictions on material and data sharing, and differences in academic standards. Respondents also complained about bias against scholars from emerging or developing countries. Our study highlights areas where efforts could be made to address policy issues, institutional barriers, and national biases to promote more productive collaboration in the global scientific community.

Are we ready to genetically modify a human embryo? Or is it too late to ask?

After the announcement that a scientist genetically altered human embryos and implanted them for gestation last November, the increased discussion has revolved around the ethical lapses that occurred in the process. The scientist, He Jiankui, forged ethical approval documents, chose a disease target that is preventable and treatable, and did not replicate a naturally occurring mutation, creating a new mutation instead. Aside from these and other ethical concerns about his procedure and protocol, several fundamental questions remain: should scientists be altering the human germline at this time and, if so, under what circumstances? If not, under what circumstances might such research be permissible, if at all? And who should make these decisions? We believe that it is too early for this research to be conducted in embryos intended for gestation. Additional safety and efficacy research on animal and non-implanted embryos is needed. But more importantly, a broad societal conversation should inform decisions about the future of germline editing, including determining the scope of relevant ethical considerations, such as the conditions under which the research is ready for human application (if at all), and the oversight such research requires. Abbreviations: First-in-Human (FIH); National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM).

Public-private divide: cultural and social factors in women's attitudes toward cord blood banking in Jordan.

BACKGROUND: Private cord blood (CB) banking is more widespread than public banking in Jordan, contributing to misinformation and unequal access to resources. This study elucidates unique perspectives of women in Jordan toward CB banking for the purpose of national and international policymaking, ethics, and education. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: The authors developed and disseminated a questionnaire to women in maternity outpatient clinic waiting rooms in five different hospitals in Jordan. A total of 899 surveys were collected with 100% return rate: 464 surveys from private hospitals and 435 from public ones. Data were reported as frequency distributions, chi-square and Fisher's exact test statistics, and odds ratios. RESULTS: Patient demographics, self-reported knowledge, and opinions about CB banking differed significantly between women at private versus public hospitals. Women at private hospitals had higher levels of awareness and communication with a health care professional about CB banking, which is associated with more positive viewpoints on CB banking and a self-reported higher likelihood of participating in CB banking in the future. Furthermore, religious approval and father-only consent for CB banking must be considered as unique factors in CB storage in Jordan. CONCLUSION: This analysis aids in identifying discrepancies in knowledge, resources, and communication, as well as unique population preferences. Comprehensive culturally attuned educational campaigns for patients and physicians should be a national priority to ensure ethical practice, informed decision making, and sustainable programs before the opening of Jordan's first public CB bank in 2017.

Responding to Richard: Celebrity and (mis)representation of science.

Drawing on 48 in-depth interviews conducted with biologists and physicists at universities in the United Kingdom, this study examines scientists' perceptions of the role celebrity scientists play in socially contentious public debates. We examine Richard Dawkins' involvement in public debates related to the relationship between science and religion as a case to analyze scientists' perceptions of the role celebrity scientists play in the public sphere and the implications of celebrity science for the practice of science communication. Findings show that Dawkins' proponents view the celebrity scientist as a provocateur who asserts the cultural authority of science in the public sphere. Critics, who include both religious and nonreligious scientists, argue that Dawkins misrepresents science and scientists and reject his approach to public engagement. Scientists emphasize promotion of science over the scientist, diplomacy over derision, and dialogue over ideological extremism.

Erratum: Revisiting the Warnock rule.

This corrects the article DOI: 10.1038/nbt.4015.

Assessing women's knowledge and attitudes toward cord blood banking: policy and ethical implications for Jordan.

BACKGROUND: Despite the global expansion of umbilical cord blood (CB) banking, little is known about public opinion and awareness, especially among Arab Muslim populations. CB banking raises policy questions about funding sustainability and quality standards, as well as ethical debates about profitability, informed consent, and medical justification. This study is the first of its kind in the Arab world, and Jordan has a unique, understudied, yet highly relevant setting, especially as a regional medical hub with advanced medical and health policy infrastructures. In addition, the first private and public CB banks are expected to open in 2016. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: The authors developed and administered, over a 5-month period, an anonymous survey to investigate public opinion and knowledge about CB banking in Jordan. The survey was administered to women in maternity outpatient clinic waiting rooms at five different hospitals. RESULTS: More than 75% of respondents indicated they knew nothing about CB banking in Jordan, and more than 50% had never heard of CB banking before. However, overall public opinion about CB storage is positive. Important factors related to public opinion were also identified, demonstrating that most women want more information on CB banking, especially from their obstetrician. CONCLUSION: This widespread lack of awareness is likely contributing to misinformation, lack of knowledge, and unfavorable perspectives toward CB donation and research. The results have important implications for the development of national and regional policies and educational campaigns on CB banking targeting both physicians and patients.