The Contribution of the Protestant Church in Germany to the Pluralist Discourse in Bioethics: The Case of Stem Cell Research

Christian contributions to the public discourse on bioethicscome from individual Christians, from Christian churches, andfrom academic theology. All contributors must frame their argumentsin such a way as to account for the pluralism of worldviewsin contemporary Germany. For this purpose, they must take issuewith certain hermeneutical and discourse theoretical considerations.That is to say, in order for their contributions to remain normativelyauthentic in a Christian and Protestant sense, these must relateto Scripture and to Protestantism's confessional documents,and in order for these contributions to remain pertinent andrelevant to the facts, they must relate to biomedical, philosophical,and legal contexts. Given these hermeneutical and discoursetheoretical requirements, two church statements addressing theethical discussion concerning the use of embryonic stem cellsfor medical research are analyzed.     

Research Misconduct in the Age of Open Science: The Case of STAP Stem Cells

In early 2014, Dr Haruko Obokata and her co-authors caused a global media storm by publishing two scientific papers in Nature on stem cells. The papers proposed a surprisingly simple new method called stimulus-triggered acquisition of pluripotency (STAP) to generate pluripotent stem cells for research purposes in a fast and inexpensive way. To the dismay of many, both papers were retracted within six months of their release due to data fabrication and falsification. The rise and fall of the STAP research illustrates the impacts of open science practices of quality control and validation on new scientific claims. In the STAP case, collective action generated through two online forums—the Knoepfler Lab Stem Cell Blog and PubPeer—exposed not only data manipulation in the two papers but also the irreproducibility of the purported new cellular reprogramming method. The case brings to the fore the tentative possibilities as well as potential pitfalls of ‘accelerated virtual witnessing’ through crowdsourced post-publication peer reviews that value accessibility and inclusiveness. Indeed, it calls for empirically grounded discussion on the ongoing reconfiguration of the shared system of values and norms or the moral economy of science.