Trustworthiness matters: Building equitable and ethical science

Racial Equity, Diversity and Inclusion in Bioethics: Recommendations from the Association of Bioethics Program Directors Presidential Task Force

Recent calls to address racism in bioethics reflect a sense of urgency to mitigate the lethal effects of a lack of action. While the field was catalyzed largely in response to pivotal events deeply rooted in racism and other structures of oppression embedded in research and health care, it has failed to center racial justice in its scholarship, pedagogy, advocacy, and practice, and neglected to integrate anti-racism as a central consideration. Academic bioethics programs play a key role in determining the field's norms and practices, including methodologies, funding priorities, and professional networks that bear on equity, inclusion, and epistemic justice. This article describes recommendations from the Racial Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (REDI) Task Force commissioned by the Association of Bioethics Program Directors to prioritize and strengthen anti-racist practices in bioethics programmatic endeavors and to evaluate and develop specific goals to advance REDI.

"Ethical Responsibility Very Often Gets Drowned Out": A Qualitative Interview Study of Genome Scientists' and ELSI Scholars' Perspectives on the Role and Relevance of ELSI Expertise

BACKGROUND

Genome scientists and Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications of genetics (ELSI) scholars commonly inhabit distinct research cultures - utilizing different research methods, asking different research questions, and valuing different types of knowledge. Collaborations between these two communities are frequently called for to enhance the ethical conduct of genomics research. Yet, little has been done to qualitatively compare genome scientists' and ELSI scholars' perspectives on collaborations with each other and the factors that may affect these collaborations.

METHODS

20 semi-structured interviews with US-based genome scientists and ELSI scholars were conducted between June-September 2021. Interviews were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Genome scientists and ELSI scholars provided different understandings of the value and goals of their collaborations with each other. Genome scientists largely perceived ELSI expertise to be relevant for human subjects research; they described ELSI scholars as communicators who help the public and/or study participants better understand genomics research. In comparison, ELSI scholars viewed themselves as developing and implementing policies; they expressed frustration at how scientists can misunderstand their research methods or negatively perceive them. A combination of factors - both structural (e.g., criteria for promotion) and cultural (e.g., perceptions of what colleagues value and respect) - seemed to shape these diverging perspectives.

CONCLUSION

Academic institutions, funders, and researchers commonly call for collaborations between genome scientists and ELSI scholars, but under-consider how their different conceptual frameworks, research methods, goals, norms, and values, conjoin to affect such partnerships. Acknowledging, exploring, and addressing the complex interplay between these factors could help to more effectively facilitate collaborations between genome scientists and ELSI scholars.

Race science without racists: how bigoted paradigms persist in allergy research

In the wake of the murder of George Floyd and the massacre in Buffalo, the editorial boards of the prominent scientific publication companies formally apologized for their journals' historical role in advancing race science and promised to improve their standards. However, flowery commentaries cannot undo the consistent pattern of endorsing biologic differences between ethnic groups, even when discussing diseases or traits that are not considered politically charged. In this report, an exemplar is made of a recent publication claiming to identify phenotypes of atopic dermatitis that are distinct between European Americans, Asians, and African Americans. The insufficiency of the evidence and logic underlying these claims are discussed. Although devoid of malice, numerous publications continue to demonstrate how claims of biological differences between races is mainstreamed in modern scientific publications. Overall, the goal of this work is to challenge the scientific community, particularly the publication companies, to evaluate how assumptions of innate biologic disadvantage have clouded assessments of racial disparities in disease beyond the topics that are more stereotypical of race science.

Large-scale neurophysiology and single-cell profiling in human neuroscience

Advances in large-scale single-unit human neurophysiology, single-cell RNA sequencing, spatial transcriptomics and long-term ex vivo tissue culture of surgically resected human brain tissue have provided an unprecedented opportunity to study human neuroscience. In this Perspective, we describe the development of these paradigms, including Neuropixels and recent brain-cell atlas efforts, and discuss how their convergence will further investigations into the cellular underpinnings of network-level activity in the human brain. Specifically, we introduce a workflow in which functionally mapped samples of human brain tissue resected during awake brain surgery can be cultured ex vivo for multi-modal cellular and functional profiling. We then explore how advances in human neuroscience will affect clinical practice, and conclude by discussing societal and ethical implications to consider. Potential findings from the field of human neuroscience will be vast, ranging from insights into human neurodiversity and evolution to providing cell-type-specific access to study and manipulate diseased circuits in pathology. This Perspective aims to provide a unifying framework for the field of human neuroscience as we welcome an exciting era for understanding the functional cytoarchitecture of the human brain.

The advancement of artificial intelligence in biomedical research and health innovation: challenges and opportunities in emerging economies

The advancement of artificial intelligence (AI), algorithm optimization and high-throughput experiments has enabled scientists to accelerate the discovery of new chemicals and materials with unprecedented efficiency, resilience and precision. Over the recent years, the so-called autonomous experimentation (AE) systems are featured as key AI innovation to enhance and accelerate research and development (R&D). Also known as self-driving laboratories or materials acceleration platforms, AE systems are digital platforms capable of running a large number of experiments autonomously. Those systems are rapidly impacting biomedical research and clinical innovation, in areas such as drug discovery, nanomedicine, precision oncology, and others. As it is expected that AE will impact healthcare innovation from local to global levels, its implications for science and technology in emerging economies should be examined. By examining the increasing relevance of AE in contemporary R&D activities, this article aims to explore the advancement of artificial intelligence in biomedical research and health innovation, highlighting its implications, challenges and opportunities in emerging economies. AE presents an opportunity for stakeholders from emerging economies to co-produce the global knowledge landscape of AI in health. However, asymmetries in R&D capabilities should be acknowledged since emerging economies suffers from inadequacies and discontinuities in resources and funding. The establishment of decentralized AE infrastructures could support stakeholders to overcome local restrictions and opens venues for more culturally diverse, equitable, and trustworthy development of AI in health-related R&D through meaningful partnerships and engagement. Collaborations with innovators from emerging economies could facilitate anticipation of fiscal pressures in science and technology policies, obsolescence of knowledge infrastructures, ethical and regulatory policy lag, and other issues present in the Global South. Also, improving cultural and geographical representativeness of AE contributes to foster the diffusion and acceptance of AI in health-related R&D worldwide. Institutional preparedness is critical and could enable stakeholders to navigate opportunities of AI in biomedical research and health innovation in the coming years.

The Digital Therapeutics Real-World Evidence Framework: An Approach for Guiding Evidence-Based Digital Therapeutics Design, Development, Testing, and Monitoring

Digital therapeutics (DTx) are a promising way to provide safe, effective, accessible, sustainable, scalable, and equitable approaches to advance individual and population health. However, developing and deploying DTx is inherently complex in that DTx includes multiple interacting components, such as tools to support activities like medication adherence, health behavior goal-setting or self-monitoring, and algorithms that adapt the provision of these according to individual needs that may change over time. While myriad frameworks exist for different phases of DTx development, no single framework exists to guide evidence production for DTx across its full life cycle, from initial DTx development to long-term use. To fill this gap, we propose the DTx real-world evidence (RWE) framework as a pragmatic, iterative, milestone-driven approach for developing DTx. The DTx RWE framework is derived from the 4-phase development model used for behavioral interventions, but it includes key adaptations that are specific to the unique characteristics of DTx. To ensure the highest level of fidelity to the needs of users, the framework also incorporates real-world data (RWD) across the entire life cycle of DTx development and use. The DTx RWE framework is intended for any group interested in developing and deploying DTx in real-world contexts, including those in industry, health care, public health, and academia. Moreover, entities that fund research that supports the development of DTx and agencies that regulate DTx might find the DTx RWE framework useful as they endeavor to improve how DTxcan advance individual and population health.

From lab to society: Fostering clinical translation of molecular systems engineering

Over the last decade, bioengineering has seen a sustained growth in scientific publications, patents, and clinical trials. As the field attempts to bridge the gap between discovery and clinical application, a broader societal dialogue is needed to build public trust and address potential ethical, societal, and regulatory challenges. In this essay, we discuss societal aspects linked to the clinical use of biomedical engineering approaches and technologies, with a specific focus on molecular systems engineering. Drawing on data from interviews with 24 scientists, we identified four key aspects for fostering societal support for translational efforts in this domain: (1) effective science communication and internal awareness; (2) open societal dialogue; (3) fair and equitable access to new technologies; and (4) adequate science and technology policies. We conclude that molecular systems engineering would benefit from anticipating future challenges with the view of building a robust bond of trust with lay publics, regulators, and society at large.