Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
The two-bucket problem of unproven stem cell interventions (SCIs) continues to bifurcate good (ethical) from bad (unethical) practices in the translation of stem cell medicine in ways that divert attention from other salient and challenging questions. It causes scholars to focus narrowly on reprimanding bad actors through legal and regulatory approaches and distracts from other important considerations such as how best to balance evidence with unmet patient needs and address misinformation about unproven stem cell interventions potentially changing patient behavior. The stem cell science community needs to consider a range of ethical practices and aim to address important questions that have yet not received sufficient consideration.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.2217/rme-2022-0124 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!