An overview of the role of society and risk in xenotransplantation

Abstract

Several categories of individuals may be interesting and interested publics in xenotransplantation. This is a field in which the importance of the potential risks that xenotransplants pose to society has been widely discussed. The point is that publics should not only be educated about the risk but should be given an opportunity to participate actively in the decision about whether and under what conditions they are exposed to the risk. Likewise, the boundaries between surveys, consultations and collection of advice may be blurred in actual practices. The hope remains that all different instruments either to collect or disseminate knowledge, and to explore new tools of governance may help connect science and policy to society in deeper and more complex ways. The next step points to a different meaning of public participation. It is shifting from participation as mere consensus and risk acceptance, to public engagement as a form of shared responsibility for risk control and regulatory decision-making.

Extracellular Matrix Revisited: Roles in Tissue Engineering

“…Most approaches used in regenerative medicine can be generally categorized into 3 techniques: (1) autotransplantation, which is the transplantation of proteins, cells, or tissues (so-called autografts) from one part of the body (i.e., the tooth [ 45 ] or heart [ 46 ]) to another in the same patient; (2) allotransplantation, which is the transplantation of cells, tissues, or organs (so-called allografts) to a recipient from genetically nonidentical donors of the same species [ 47 , 48 ]; and (3) xenotransplantation, which is the transplantation of living cells, tissues, or organs (so-called xenografts) from one species to another [ 49 , 50 ]. In addition to ethical issues [ 51 ], significant potential problems have limited the use of transplantations with allografts and xenografts for medical treatments, including immunologic responses, xenozoonosis, and genetic alterations [ 52 ]. Hence, achieving wound healing via autografts remains an ideal, yet challenging approach [ 53 ].…”

Islet Xeno/transplantation and the risk of contagion: local responses from Canada and Australia to an emerging global technoscience

“…Sobbrio and Jorqui observed that public engagement on xenotransplantation in Canada and Australia represented significant developments in ‘experimental democracy’ (Sobbrio and Jorqui 2014 , 523). They wrote, Both the Canadian and Australian experiences shared certain important features: they were launched by the government as the expression of a more trusted and democratic social contract between institutions and citizens; they aimed at engaging citizens in more direct decision-making; they explored and inquired into relevant issues about technological innovation and social change; and they attempted to introduce a new concept of scientific citizenship through the identity of the citizen scientist (Sobbrio and Jorqui 2014 : 528). …”

“…A number of publications have analysed the Canadian and/or Australian xenotransplantation controversies. Such work generally adopt either a national or comparative perspective (Sobbrio and Jorqui 2014 ; McLean and Williamson 2005 ; Cook 2011 , 2014 ; Beynon-Jones and Brown 2011 ; Einsiedel et al 2011a ; Tallachini 2011 ; Allspaw 2004 ; Mortensen 2005 ). Comparing national approaches and policies on clinical xenotransplantation is an important method of social inquiry since it allows for an analysis of convergences and divergences in public policy and scientific culture in different countries (Jasanoff 2005 ).…”

“…Adopting a precautionary approach on xenotransplantation, the report recommended the establishment of an advisory committee to oversee and monitor xenotransplantation research and clinical trials. According to Sobbrio and Jorqui, the Nuffield Council report was innovative since it was the first attempt to apply the precautionary principle to protect public health beyond the field of environmental science and humanities (Sobbrio and Jorqui 2014 ). In the following year, an interdisciplinary committee appointed by the UK Department of Health put forward a comparable report.…”

Xenotransplantation literature update, November–December 2014

“…Definitely worth reading if only to enhance our worldview of xenotransplantation. It is fitting that Sobbrio and Jorqui have provided an ethical review of how we have historically and currently consider public opinion and consultation . The authors suggest that xenotransplantation as an emerging biotechnology may be an example of how engaging the public has evolved from a passive discussion to assessing the shared responsibility of risk acceptance and possible regulatory issues.…”