Wrestling with Public Input on an Ethical Analysis of Scientific Research
-
Published:2023-03
Issue:S1
Volume:53
Page:
-
ISSN:0093-0334
-
Container-title:Hastings Center Report
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Hastings Center Report
Author:
Martschenko Daphne Oluwaseun,Callier Shawneequa L.,Garrison Nanibaa’ A.,Lee Sandra Soo‐Jin,Turley Patrick,Meyer Michelle N.,Parens Erik
Abstract
AbstractBioethicists frequently call for empirical researchers to engage participants and community members in their research, but don't themselves typically engage community members in their normative research. In this article, we describe an effort to include members of the public in normative discussions about the risks, potential benefits, and ethical responsibilities of social and behavioral genomics (SBG) research. We reflect on what might—and might not— be gained from engaging the public in normative scholarship and on lessons learned about public perspectives on the risks and potential benefits of SBG research and the responsible conduct and communication of such research. We also provide procedural lessons for others in bioethics who are interested in engaging members of the public in their research.
Funder
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
Russell Sage Foundation
JPB Foundation
National Institute on Aging
Open Philanthropy Project
Subject
Health Policy,Philosophy,Issues, ethics and legal aspects,Health (social science),Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering,Environmental Engineering
Reference10 articles.
1. Where necessary to improve readability grammatical and spelling errors have been corrected.
2. “I don’t want to be Henrietta Lacks”: diverse patient perspectives on donating biospecimens for precision medicine research
3. “Wrestling with Social and Behavioral Genomics: Risks Potential Benefits and Ethical Responsibility ” The Hastings Center accessed September 24 2020 https://www.thehastingscenter.org/who-we-are/our-research/current-projects/wrestling-with-social-and-behavioral-genomics-risks-potential-benefits-and-ethical-responsibility/.
4. Experiences from a community advisory Board in the Implementation of early access to ART for all in Eswatini: a qualitative study
5. M. N.Meyeret al. “A Mixed Methods Study of Attitudes of Participants at Two Biobanks to Studying Medical Social and Behavioral Phenotypes ” (unpublished manuscript in progress January 17 2022) Microsoft Word file.
Cited by
4 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献