The Ethics of Moral Compromise for Stem Cell Research Policy

Best Practice to Order Authors in Multi/Interdisciplinary Health Sciences Research Publications

Misunderstanding and disputes about authorship are commonplace among members of multi/interdisciplinary health research teams. If left unmanaged and unresolved, these conflicts can undermine knowledge sharing and collaboration, obscure accountability for research, and contribute to the incorrect attribution of credit. To mitigate these issues, certain researchers suggest quantitative authorship distributions schemes (e.g., point systems), while others wish to replace or minimize the importance of authorship by using "contributorship"-a system based on authors' self-reporting contributions. While both methods have advantages, we argue that authorship and contributorship will most likely continue to coexist for multiple ethical and practical reasons. In this article, we develop a five-step "best practice" that incorporates the distribution of both contributorship and authorship for multi/interdisciplinary research. This procedure involves continuous dialogue and the use of a detailed contributorship taxonomy ending with a declaration explaining contributorship, which is used to justify authorship order. Institutions can introduce this approach in responsible conduct of research training as it promotes greater fairness, trust, and collegiality among team members and ultimately reduces confusion and facilitates resolution of time-consuming disagreements.

Impedance of novel therapeutic technologies: the case of stem cells

Embryonic stem cell (ES) technology has advanced considerably within the past three decades and has gained prominent distinction within the emerging field of regenerative medicine. As it now enters the nascent stages of clinical application, many hopes and expectations arise along with questions as to where the technology will go. This paper evaluates the technical and practical obstacles that must be overcome before it can fully translate into the clinical context, the existence of strong opposition to the technology, political and legal barriers that have impeded its progression, and the role of healthcare reform in creating new social and economic priorities. In contrast to the technological imperative, a driving force seeking to implement the most recent scientific advances into medical practice, we refer to such translational obstacles as "technological impedance." Rather than expending inordinate effort to preserve existing systems that continue to possess major hurdles, we advocate fostering interdisciplinary approaches in the development of new generation platforms and embracing disruptive innovations that create solutions to technological impedance and move us forward in healthcare delivery. Clin Trans Sci 2012; Volume 5: 422-427.