Molecular geneticists and moral responsibility: "maybe if we were working on the atom bomb I would have a different argument

Plaidoyer pour un élargissement des pratiques de l’éthique de la recherche

La pratique de l’éthique de la recherche en Amérique du Nord, au Canada et au Québec se concentre principalement sur l’évaluation par des instances locales de projets de recherche avec des participants humains à l’aide de principes et de règles d’application énoncées dans des textes normatifs. Ce cadre régulateur vise à protéger les personnes qui participent à des projets de recherche. Bien qu’utile et nécessaire, une telle pratique de l’éthique de la recherche centrée sur le développement et l’application de normes par des instances locales comporte certaines limites qui sont défiées par les nouvelles avancées scientifiques et leur contexte de développement. Cet article vise à appuyer un plaidoyer en faveur de l’élargissement de la pratique actuelle de l’éthique de la recherche, élargissement qui permettrait d’inclure les trois moments d’une démarche éthique complète telle qu’inspirée par le philosophe Paul Ricoeur, soit le moment de l’éthique antérieure, le moment normatif et le moment délibératif. Un tel élargissement des pratiques de l’éthique de la recherche lui permettrait de créer ou multiplier des lieux à différents niveaux pour délibérer sur le sens donné aux avancées scientifiques, leurs finalités, leurs motivations, qu’elles soient implicites ou explicites, tout en tenant compte du contexte social plus global des recherches.

Policies to increase the social value of science and the scientist satisfaction. An exploratory survey among Harvard bioscientists

Basic research in the biomedical field generates both knowledge that has a value per se regardless of its possible practical outcome and knowledge that has the potential to produce more practical benefits. Policies can increase the benefit potential to society of basic biomedical research by offering various kinds of incentives to basic researchers. In this paper we argue that soft incentives or “nudges” are particularly promising. However, to be well designed, these incentives must take into account the motivations, goals and views of the basic scientists. In the paper we present the results of an investigation that involved more than 300 scientists at Harvard Medical School and affiliated institutes. The results of this study suggest that some soft incentives could be valuable tools to increase the transformative value of fundamental investigations without affecting the spirit of the basic research and scientists’ work satisfaction. After discussing the findings, we discuss a few examples of nudges for basic researchers in the biomedical fields.

Biomedical scientists' perceptions of ethical and social implications: is there a role for research ethics consultation?

BACKGROUND

Research ethics consultation programs are being established with a goal of addressing the ethical, societal, and policy considerations associated with biomedical research. A number of these programs are modelled after clinical ethics consultation services that began to be institutionalized in the 1980s. Our objective was to determine biomedical science researchers' perceived need for and utility of research ethics consultation, through examination of their perceptions of whether they and their institutions faced ethical, social or policy issues (outside those mandated by regulation) and examination of willingness to seek advice in addressing these issues. We conducted telephone interviews and focus groups in 2006 with researchers from Stanford University and a mailed survey in December 2006 to 7 research universities in the U.S.

FINDINGS

A total of 16 researchers were interviewed (75% response rate), 29 participated in focus groups, and 856 responded to the survey (50% response rate). Approximately half of researchers surveyed (51%) reported that they would find a research ethics consultation service at their institution moderately, very or extremely useful, while over a third (36%) reported that such a service would be useful to them personally. Respondents conducting human subjects research were more likely to find such a service very to extremely useful to them personally than respondents not conducting human subjects research (20% vs 10%; chi(2) p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Our findings indicate that biomedical researchers do encounter and anticipate encountering ethical and societal questions and concerns and a substantial proportion, especially clinical researchers, would likely use a consultation service if they were aware of it. These findings provide data to inform the development of such consultation programs in general.

Geneticists' views on science policy formation and public outreach

Though much research about the public's views of scientists, genetic research and its moral, ethical, and social implications exists, little has been done to investigate how scientists view their own role(s) in public discussions and policy formation related to genetic research and technologies. We interviewed 20 academic geneticists in the United States about their perceptions of the roles they and others (e.g., professional societies, the public, ethicists, and elected officials) do and should play in the formation of science policy, the communication of science to the public, and the public discussions of moral and ethical issues raised by scientific advances. The participants in our study thought that scientists should be more actively involved in public outreach and science policy formation, but frequently they felt ill-equipped and unsupported by their peers and institutions to pursue these activities. Furthermore, many were skeptical of or did not trust elected officials--who they consider uninformed about the issues and too driven by political agendas--to formulate sound science policy. They do, however, have faith in the ability of scientific societies to influence policy effectively, and some thought that societies should play a larger role, both in science policy and as a liaison between scientists and the public. Finally, participants offered suggestions for increasing the involvement and influence of scientists in science-policy formation and public discourse.

Psychosocial aspects of genetic counseling and testing

OBJECTIVES

To highlight areas where persons who undergo BRCA1/2 mutation testing may benefit from psychosocial or behavioral support and intervention.

DATA SOURCES

Published scientific literature, cal, and research experiences.

CONCLUSION

Key psychosocial areas that deserve attention by clinicians and researchers include: indeterminate or inconclusive test results, selection of risk management strategies in unaffected BRCA1/2 mutation carriers, and genetic testing in minority communities.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE

By addressing the psychosocial issues faced by patients undergoing genetic testing for cancer, nurses have the potential to maximize opportunities for prevention, early detection, and healthy coping.

Publication visibility of sensitive public health data: when scientists bury their results

What happens when the scientific tradition of openness clashes with potential societal risks? The work of American toxic-exposure epidemiologists can attract media coverage and lead the public to change health practices, initiate lawsuits, or take other steps a study's authors might consider unwarranted. This paper, reporting data from 61 semi-structured interviews with U.S. toxic-exposure epidemiologists, examines whether such possibilities shaped epidemiologists' selection of journals for potentially sensitive papers. Respondents manifested strong support for the norm of scientific openness, but a significant minority had or would/might, given the right circumstances, publish sensitive data in less visible journals, so as to prevent unwanted media or public attention. Often, even those advocating such limited "burial" upheld openness, claiming that less visible publication allowed them to avoid totally withholding the data from publication. However, 15% of the sample had or would, for the most sensitive types of data, withhold publication altogether. Rather than respondents explaining their actions in terms of an expected split between "pure science" and "social advocacy" models, even those publishing in the more visible journals often described their actions in terms of their "responsibility". Several practical limitations (particularly involving broader access to scientific literature via the Internet) of the strategy of burial are discussed, and some recommendations are offered for scientists, the media, and the public.

Audience, consequence, and journal selection in toxic-exposure epidemiology

Even preliminary toxic-exposure epidemiology papers can spark "media scares" and questionable reactions amongst the public. Concerns for the social consequences of publication can lead epidemiologists--despite the advantages of visible publication--to choose a more obscure outlet for potentially sensitive studies. Interviews with 61 US toxic-exposure epidemiologists indicate that investigators generally sought visible journals to transmit their work to the widest relevant audience. Yet up to 36-46% of this sample sometimes have sought or would seek to keep their research from a public who, they feared, might misuse their results. Implications for the boundaries between science and society (including evidence of hidden scientific activism and "inert" public activism) are discussed, and six hypotheses for further research are proposed.