Barriers to Considering Ethical and Societal Implications of Research: Perceptions of Life Scientists

Increasing equity in science requires better ethics training: A course by trainees, for trainees

Despite the profound impacts of scientific research, few scientists have received the necessary training to productively discuss the ethical and societal implications of their work. To address this critical gap, we-a group of predominantly human genetics trainees-developed a course on genetics, ethics, and society. We intend for this course to serve as a template for other institutions and scientific disciplines. Our curriculum positions human genetics within its historical and societal context and encourages students to evaluate how societal norms and structures impact the conduct of scientific research. We demonstrate the utility of this course via surveys of enrolled students and provide resources and strategies for others hoping to teach a similar course. We conclude by arguing that if we are to work toward rectifying the inequities and injustices produced by our field, we must first learn to view our own research as impacting and being impacted by society.

How Do Molecular Systems Engineering Scientists Frame the Ethics of Their Research?

BACKGROUND

There are intense discussions about the ethical and societal implications of biomedical engineering, but little data to suggest how scientists think about the ethics of their work. The aim of this study is to describe how scientists frame the ethics of their research, with a focus on the field of molecular systems engineering.

METHODS

Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted during 2021-2022, as part of a larger study. This analysis includes a broad question about how participants view ethics as related to their work, with follow up probes about the topics they consider most important. Interviews were transcribed, inductively coded by two researchers to consensus, and analyzed thematically.

RESULTS

Twenty-four scientists participated in the study. Interviewees hold positions as professors, principal investigators, and senior staff researchers in universities or research institutes in the United States and Europe. Among those scientists who reported reflecting on ethical considerations in their work, many equated ethics with research ethics topics (e.g., safety, replicability), or with regulation and guidelines. Participants expressed the view that ethical issues are primarily relevant for clinical trials of bioengineered products, or for those working with animal or human subjects. Scientists described their research as "too early" or "not examining anything living" with regard to ethical reflection. Finally, many felt that ethics is seen as territory for experts and therefore beyond scientists' competencies.

CONCLUSIONS

Molecular systems engineering scientists currently focus on regulatory aspects as the framework for their ethical analyses. They describe using a framework to define when life arises, as a means to determine when further ethical engagement is warranted. Further research is needed to investigate how scientists relate to the ethics of their scientific work, and build consensus around concepts of life, autonomous behavior, and physiological relevance of bioengineered systems.

Motivating Proactive Biorisk Management

Scholars and practitioners of biosafety and biosecurity (collectively, biorisk management or BRM) have argued that life scientists should play a more proactive role in monitoring their work for potential risks, mitigating harm, and seeking help as necessary. However, most efforts to promote proactive BRM have focused on training life scientists in technical skills and have largely ignored the extent to which life scientists wish to use them (ie, their motivation). In this article, we argue that efforts to promote proactive BRM would benefit from a greater focus on life scientists' motivation. We review relevant literature on life scientists' motivation to practice BRM, offer examples of successful interventions from adjacent fields, and outline ideas for possible interventions to promote proactive BRM, along with strategies for iterative development, testing, and scaling.

Evaluating a dialogue-based approach to teaching about values and policy in graduate transdisciplinary environmental science programs

This article discusses a formal evaluation of new curricular materials and activities designed to foster understanding of three key issues-expertise, risk, and sociopolitical constraints-related to values and policy in transdisciplinary environmental science. We begin by describing the three issues, along with current thinking about the most appropriate ways to address them in the context of transdisciplinary environmental science. We then describe how we created curricular materials and activities focusing on these three issues that could be tailored for use in a wide range of graduate environmental science programs. The curriculum was adapted by instructors for use in five graduate classes at two US universities, and we used a pre-test, post-test mixed methods design to evaluate its effects on students' ethical reasoning about values and policy. The results of this evaluation suggest that our semi-structured, dialogue-based curriculum enhances student awareness of and reasoning about values and policy in environmental research. We close with several educational recommendations for transdisciplinary environmental science programs that are grounded in our experience with this curriculum.

Science Outside the Lab: Helping Graduate Students in Science and Engineering Understand the Complexities of Science Policy

Helping scientists and engineers challenge received assumptions about how science, engineering, and society relate is a critical cornerstone for macroethics education. Scientific and engineering research are frequently framed as first steps of a value-free linear model that inexorably leads to societal benefit. Social studies of science and assessments of scientific and engineering research speak to the need for a more critical approach to the noble intentions underlying these assumptions. "Science Outside the Lab" is a program designed to help early-career scientists and engineers understand the complexities of science and engineering policy. Assessment of the program entailed a pre-, post-, and 1 year follow up survey to gauge student perspectives on relationships between science and society, as well as a pre-post concept map exercise to elicit student conceptualizations of science policy. Students leave Science Outside the Lab with greater humility about the role of scientific expertise in science and engineering policy; greater skepticism toward linear notions of scientific advances benefiting society; a deeper, more nuanced understanding of the actors involved in shaping science policy; and a continued appreciation of the contributions of science and engineering to society. The study presents an efficacious program that helps scientists and engineers make inroads into macroethical debates, reframe the ways in which they think about values of science and engineering in society, and more thoughtfully engage with critical mediators of science and society relationships: policy makers and policy processes.

The Need for Social Ethics in Interdisciplinary Environmental Science Graduate Programs: Results from a Nation-Wide Survey in the United States

Professionals in environmental fields engage with complex problems that involve stakeholders with different values, different forms of knowledge, and contentious decisions. There is increasing recognition of the need to train graduate students in interdisciplinary environmental science programs (IESPs) in these issues, which we refer to as "social ethics." A literature review revealed topics and skills that should be included in such training, as well as potential challenges and barriers. From this review, we developed an online survey, which we administered to faculty from 81 United States colleges and universities offering IESPs (480 surveys were completed). Respondents overwhelmingly agreed that IESPs should address values in applying science to policy and management decisions. They also agreed that programs should engage students with issues related to norms of scientific practice. Agreement was slightly less strong that IESPs should train students in skills related to managing value conflicts among different stakeholders. The primary challenges to incorporating social ethics into the curriculum were related to the lack of materials and expertise for delivery, though challenges such as ethics being marginalized in relation to environmental science content were also prominent. Challenges related to students' interest in ethics were considered less problematic. Respondents believed that social ethics are most effectively delivered when incorporated into existing courses, and they preferred case studies or problem-based learning for delivery. Student competence is generally not assessed, and respondents recognized a need for both curricular materials and assessment tools.

Are Leadership and Management Essential for Good Research? An Interview Study of Genetic Researchers

Principal investigators are responsible for a myriad of leadership and management activities in their work. The practices they use to navigate these responsibilities ultimately influence the quality and integrity of research. However, leadership and management roles in research have received scant empirical examination. Semi-structured interviews with 32 National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded genetic researchers revealed that they considered leadership and management essential for effective research, but their scientific training inadequately prepared them. We also report management practices that the researchers described using in their labs, as well as their perceptions of a proposed intervention to enhance laboratory leadership. These findings suggest best practices for the research community, future directions for scientific training, and implications for research on leadership and management in science.

Increasing both the public health potential of basic research and the scientist satisfaction. An international survey of bio-scientists

Basic scientific research generates knowledge that has intrinsic value which is independent of future applications. Basic research may also lead to practical benefits, such as a new drug or diagnostic method. Building on our previous study of basic biomedical and biological researchers at Harvard, we present findings from a new survey of similar scientists from three countries. The goal of this study was to design policies to enhance both the public health potential and the work satisfaction and test scientists' attitudes towards these factors. The present survey asked about the scientists' motivations, goals and perspectives along with their attitudes concerning  policies designed to increase both the practical (i.e. public health) benefits of basic research as well as their own personal satisfaction. Close to 900 basic investigators responded to the survey; results corroborate the main findings from the previous survey of Harvard scientists. In addition, we find that most bioscientists disfavor present policies that require a discussion of the public health potential of their proposals in grants but generally favor softer policies aimed at increasing the quality of work and the potential practical benefits of basic research. In particular, bioscientists are generally supportive of those policies entailing the organization of more meetings between scientists and the general public, the organization of more academic discussion about the role of scientists in the society, and the implementation of a "basic bibliography" for each new approved drug.

BARRIERS AND FACILITATORS INFLUENCING ETHICAL EVALUATION IN HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

Objectives: The objective of this study was to explore barriers and facilitators influencing the integration of ethical considerations in health technology assessment (HTA).

Methods: The study consisted of two complementary approaches: (a) a systematic review of the literature; and (b) an eighteen-item online survey that was distributed to fifty-six HTA agencies affiliated with the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment.

Results: The review identified twenty-six relevant articles. The most often cited barriers in the literature were: scarcity, heterogeneity and complexity of ethical analysis methods; challenges in translating ethical analysis results into knowledge that is useful for decision makers; and lack of organizational support in terms of required expertise, time and financial resources. The most frequently cited facilitators included: usage of value-based appraisal methods, stakeholder and public engagement, enhancement of practice guidelines, ethical expertise, and educational interventions.

Representatives of twenty-six (46.5 percent) agencies from nineteen countries completed the survey. A median of 10 percent (interquartile range, 5 percent to 50 percent) of the HTA products produced by the agencies was reported to include an assessment of ethical aspects. The most commonly perceived barriers were: limited ethical knowledge and expertise, insufficient time and resources, and difficulties in finding ethical evidence or using ethical guidelines. Educational interventions, demand by policy makers, and involvement of ethicists in HTA were the most commonly perceived facilitators.

Conclusions: Our results emphasize the importance of simplification of ethics methodology and development of good practice guidelines in HTA, as well as capacity building for engaging HTA practitioners in ethical analyses.

Rethinking the Meaning of Ethics in RCR Education

Training in the responsible conduct of research (RCR) is meant to ensure that federally funded scientists have the knowledge, skills, and resources necessary to conduct science in line with agreed upon scientific norms and ethical principles. At its institutional best, RCR education begins early, with reinforcement in subsequent stages of career development. Studies suggest, however, that scientists perceive the push to think about ethical matters negatively, narrowly equating ethics with burdensome oversight and regulation, or with controversies in a few highly charged areas. For their part, RCR instructors contribute to this narrow conception of ethics education by placing disproportionate emphasis on the misconduct of the few and its career-destroying consequences. The result is an ethics that is both individualistic and uncritical, an ethics incapable of explaining the threat to scientific integrity posed by a rigidly hierarchical distribution of power, severe competition for funding, a "winner takes all" credit system, and many other features of ordinary science. What is needed is a broader, richer conception of ethics, one that focuses not only on individual instances of misconduct, but also on the growing gap between the normative ideals of science and its institutional reward systems.

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.