Download PDF
Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2016; 76(12): 1308-1309
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-116545
Comment
GebFra Science
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Reply to “Response to: Dittrich et al.: Non-Embryo-Destructive Extraction of Pluripotent Embryonic Stem Cells – Overlooked Legal Prohibitions, Professional Legal Consequences and Inconsistencies in Patent Law”

Antwort auf die „Replik zu: Dittrich et al.: Embryonenerhaltende Gewinnung pluripotenter Stammzellen – übersehene strafrechtliche Verbote, berufsrechtliche Konsequenzen und patentrechtliche Inkonsequenzen“
R. Dittrich
1   Frauenklinik des Universitätsklinikums Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany
,
M. W. Beckmann
1   Frauenklinik des Universitätsklinikums Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany
,
W. Würfel
2   Kinderwunsch-Centrum München, München, Germany
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
21 December 2016 (online)

Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Comment on:

Response to: Dittrich et al.: Non-Embryo-Destructive Extraction of Pluripotent Embryonic Stem Cells – Overlooked Legal Prohibitions, Professional Legal Consequences and Inconsistencies in Patent LawGeburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2016; 76(12): 1302-1307
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-110400

In the spirit of productive scientific discussion we would like to start by thanking Faltus and Storz [1] for their comments.

Supporting Information

 

  • References

  • 1 Faltus T, Storz U. Response to: Dittrich et al.: Non-embryo-destructive extraction of pluripotent embryonic stem cells – overlooked legal prohibitions, professional legal consequences and inconsistencies in patent law. Geburtsh Frauenheilk 2016; 76: 1302-1307
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar