Genetic research and the collective good: participants as leaders to reconcile individual and public interests

Author:

Galasso IlariaORCID,Geiger SusiORCID

Abstract

This paper problematises the notions of public or common good as weighed against individual sovereignty in the context of medical research by focusing on genetic research. We propose the notion of collective good as the good of the particular collective in which the research was conducted. We conducted documentary and interview-based research with participant representatives and research leaders concerned with participant involvement in leading genetic research projects and around two recent genetic data controversies: the case of the UK Wellcome Sanger Institute, accused of planning unauthorised commercialisation of African DNA samples, and the case of the company Genuity Science, which planned genetic research on brain tumour samples in Ireland with no explicit patient consent. We advocate for greater specificity in circumscribing the collective to which genetic research relates and for greater efforts in including representatives of this collective as research coleaders in order to enable a more inclusive framing of the good arising from such research. Such community-based participant cogovernance and coleadership in genetic research is vital especially when minorities or vulnerable groups are involved, and it centrally requires community capacity building to help collectives articulate their own notions of the collective good.

Funder

H2020 European Research Council

Publisher

BMJ

Subject

Health Policy,Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous),Issues, ethics and legal aspects,Health (social science)

Reference48 articles.

1. Skloot R . The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks. Crown Edition, 2010.

2. Nisbet MC , Fahy D . Bioethics in popular science: evaluating the media impact of the immortal life of Henrietta lacks on the Biobank debate. BMC Med Ethics 2013;14:10. doi:10.1186/1472-6939-14-10

3. Increasing participation in genomic research and Biobanking through community-based capacity building;Cohn;J Genet Counsel,2015

4. The Belmont report: ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research; 1979.

5. Why Communities and Their Goods Matter: Illustrated with the Example of Biobanks

Cited by 1 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

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3