Objective
It is generally agreed in the literature that the social and legal solutions until now put into practice to enhance organ donation and retrieval for transplantation have failed at fulfilling the demand for organs. Against this, some defend new solutions: markets, community ownership of corpses; production of organs in laboratories out of stem-cells or of genetically modified animals.
These solutions are however socially, ethically and legally deeply unconsensual. Besides, they are defended without empirical data backing them. The question to what extent the existing systems are inefficient in themselves or because enough has not been done to develop them remains unanswered. The empirical reason for this is that the legislative/policy/societal factors determining organ procurement are still to be systematically identified.
The theoretical question here is can social behaviours and beliefs be modified through law and/or through policy in the existing socio-political contexts? This project proposes to conduct comparative research between three European regions around three axes: the legislative regulation of systems of donation and retrieval, their structural/organisational functioning, the role played by hospital professionals in charge of taking decisions of do nation and retrieval.
Empirically this project will produce comparable data and comparative analysis allowing a rigorous evaluation of the relative weight of each factor in order to move forward the policy debate, elaborate a model consisting of a coherent and complete set of standardised variables accounting for procurement levels, and applicable to different national cases.
Fields of science (EuroSciVoc)
CORDIS classifies projects with EuroSciVoc, a multilingual taxonomy of fields of science, through a semi-automatic process based on NLP techniques. See: The European Science Vocabulary.
CORDIS classifies projects with EuroSciVoc, a multilingual taxonomy of fields of science, through a semi-automatic process based on NLP techniques. See: The European Science Vocabulary.
You need to log in or register to use this function
Keywords
Project’s keywords as indicated by the project coordinator. Not to be confused with the EuroSciVoc taxonomy (Fields of science)
Project’s keywords as indicated by the project coordinator. Not to be confused with the EuroSciVoc taxonomy (Fields of science)
Programme(s)
Multi-annual funding programmes that define the EU’s priorities for research and innovation.
Multi-annual funding programmes that define the EU’s priorities for research and innovation.
Topic(s)
Calls for proposals are divided into topics. A topic defines a specific subject or area for which applicants can submit proposals. The description of a topic comprises its specific scope and the expected impact of the funded project.
Calls for proposals are divided into topics. A topic defines a specific subject or area for which applicants can submit proposals. The description of a topic comprises its specific scope and the expected impact of the funded project.
Call for proposal
Procedure for inviting applicants to submit project proposals, with the aim of receiving EU funding.
Procedure for inviting applicants to submit project proposals, with the aim of receiving EU funding.
FP6-2004-MOBILITY-5
See other projects for this call
Funding Scheme
Funding scheme (or “Type of Action”) inside a programme with common features. It specifies: the scope of what is funded; the reimbursement rate; specific evaluation criteria to qualify for funding; and the use of simplified forms of costs like lump sums.
Funding scheme (or “Type of Action”) inside a programme with common features. It specifies: the scope of what is funded; the reimbursement rate; specific evaluation criteria to qualify for funding; and the use of simplified forms of costs like lump sums.
Coordinator
GRONINGEN
Netherlands
The total costs incurred by this organisation to participate in the project, including direct and indirect costs. This amount is a subset of the overall project budget.