Research across the disciplines: a road map for quality criteria in empirical ethics research

The Vagueness of Integrating the Empirical and the Normative: Researchers' Views on Doing Empirical Bioethics

The integration of normative analysis with empirical data often remains unclear despite the availability of many empirical bioethics methodologies. This paper sought bioethics scholars' experiences and reflections of doing empirical bioethics research to feed these practical insights into the debate on methods. We interviewed twenty-six participants who revealed their process of integrating the normative and the empirical. From the analysis of the data, we first used the themes to identify the methodological content. That is, we show participants' use of familiar methods explained as "back-and-forth" methods (reflective equilibrium), followed by dialogical methods where collaboration was seen as a better way of doing integration. Thereafter, we highlight methods that were deemed as inherent integration approaches, where the normative and the empirical were intertwined from the start of the research project. Second, we used the themes to express not only how we interpreted what was said but also how things were said. In this, we describe an air of uncertainty and overall vagueness that surrounded the above methods. We conclude that the indeterminacy of integration methods is a double-edged sword. It allows for flexibility but also risks obscuring a lack of understanding of the theoretical-methodological underpinnings of empirical bioethics research methods.

Why Do I Choose an Animal Model or an Alternative Method in Basic and Preclinical Biomedical Research? A Spectrum of Ethically Relevant Reasons and Their Evaluation

BACKGROUND

Research model selection decisions in basic and preclinical biomedical research have not yet been the subject of an ethical investigation. Therefore, this paper aims, (1) to identify a spectrum of reasons for choosing between animal and alternative research models (e.g., based on in vitro or in silico models) and (2) provides an ethical analysis of the selected reasons.

METHODS

In total, 13 researchers were interviewed; the interviews were analyzed qualitatively. The ethical analysis was based on the principlism approach and a value judgement model.

RESULTS

This paper presents 66 reasons underlying the choice of researchers using animal (27 reasons) or alternative models (39). Most of the reasons were assigned to the work environment (29) and scientific standards (22). Other reasons were assigned to personal attitudes (11) and animal welfare (4). Qualitative relevant normative differences are presented in the ethical analysis. Even if few reasons can be rejected outright from an ethical point of view, there are good reasons to give some more weight than others.

CONCLUSIONS

The spectrum of reasons and their ethical assessment provide a framework for reflection for researchers who may have to choose between animal models and (investing in) alternatives. This can help to reflect on and ethically justify decisions.

Values, decision-making and empirical bioethics: a conceptual model for empirically identifying and analyzing value judgements

It can be assumed that value judgements, which are needed to judge what is 'good' or 'better' and what is 'bad' or 'worse', are involved in every decision-making process. The theoretical understanding and analysis of value judgements is, therefore, important in the context of bioethics, for example, to be able to ethically assess real decision-making processes in biomedical practice and make recommendations for improvements. However, real decision-making processes and the value judgements inherent in them must first be investigated empirically ('empirical bioethics'). For this to succeed, what exactly a 'value judgement' is and of what components it might consist must initially be theoretically clarified. A corresponding conceptual model can then support or even enable empirical data collection and analysis and, above all, subsequent ethical analysis and evaluation. This paper, therefore, presents a value judgement model with its theoretical derivation. It also illustrates its application in an interview study of decision-making between animal experimentation and alternative methods in the context of biomedical research. Though the model itself can be theoretically deepened and extended, the application of the model works in general and helps to uncover what value judgements can enter into decision-making. However, the empirical methods, for example, qualitative interviews, can also be better oriented towards eliciting value judgements (as understood according to the model). Further applications of the model to other topics or by means of other empirical methods are conceivable.

The risk of normative bias in reporting empirical research: lessons learned from prenatal screening studies about the prominence of acknowledged limitations

Empirical data can be an extremely powerful and influential tool in bioethical research. However, when researchers or policy makers look for answers to ethical questions by engaging with empirical research, there can be a tendency (conscious or unconscious) to shape, report, and use empirical research in a way that confirms their own preferred ethical conclusions. This skewing effect - what we call 'normative bias' - is often so subtle it falls short of clear misconduct and thus can be difficult to call out. However, we argue that this subtle influence of bias has the potential to significantly influence debate and policy around highly sensitive ethical issues and must be guarded against. In this paper we share the lessons we have learned through a journey of self-reflection around the effect that normative bias can have when reporting on and referring to empirical data relating to ethical issues. We use a variety of papers from our area of the ethics of routine prenatal screening to illustrate these subtle but often powerfully distorting effects of bias. Our aim in doing so is not to criticise the work of others, as we recognise our own normative bias, but to improve awareness of this issue, remind the need for reflexivity to guard against our own biases, and introduce a new criterion - the idea of a 'limitation prominence assessment' - that can work as a practical way to evaluate the seriousness of the limitations of an empirical study and thus, the risks of the study being misread or misinterpreted through superficial reading.

AI-assisted ethics? considerations of AI simulation for the ethical assessment and design of assistive technologies

Current ethical debates on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare treat AI as a product of technology in three ways. First, by assessing risks and potential benefits of currently developed AI-enabled products with ethical checklists; second, by proposing ex ante lists of ethical values seen as relevant for the design and development of assistive technology, and third, by promoting AI technology to use moral reasoning as part of the automation process. The dominance of these three perspectives in the discourse is demonstrated by a brief summary of the literature. Subsequently, we propose a fourth approach to AI, namely, as a methodological tool to assist ethical reflection. We provide a concept of an AI-simulation informed by three separate elements: 1) stochastic human behavior models based on behavioral data for simulating realistic settings, 2) qualitative empirical data on value statements regarding internal policy, and 3) visualization components that aid in understanding the impact of changes in these variables. The potential of this approach is to inform an interdisciplinary field about anticipated ethical challenges or ethical trade-offs in concrete settings and, hence, to spark a re-evaluation of design and implementation plans. This may be particularly useful for applications that deal with extremely complex values and behavior or with limitations on the communication resources of affected persons (e.g., persons with dementia care or for care of persons with cognitive impairment). Simulation does not replace ethical reflection but does allow for detailed, context-sensitive analysis during the design process and prior to implementation. Finally, we discuss the inherently quantitative methods of analysis afforded by stochastic simulations as well as the potential for ethical discussions and how simulations with AI can improve traditional forms of thought experiments and future-oriented technology assessment.

Socially Assistive Devices in Healthcare-a Systematic Review of Empirical Evidence from an Ethical Perspective

Socially assistive devices such as care robots or companions have been advocated as a promising tool in elderly care in Western healthcare systems. Ethical debates indicate various challenges. An important part of the ethical evaluation is to understand how users interact with these devices and how interaction influences users' perceptions and their ability to express themselves. In this review, we report and critically appraise findings of non-comparative empirical studies with regard to these effects from an ethical perspective.Electronic databases and other sources were queried using a comprehensive search strategy generating 9851 records. Studies were screened independently by two authors. Methodological quality of studies was assessed. For 22 reports on 21 datasets using a non-comparative design a narrative synthesis was performed.Data shows positive findings in regard to attitudes and emotional reactions of users. Varying perception of a social relation and social presence are the most commonly observed traits of interaction. Users struggle with understanding technical complexities while functionality of the devices is limited. This leads to a behavioral alignment of users towards the requirements of the devices to be able to make use of them.This evidence adds to three important ethical debates on the use of socially assistive devices in healthcare in regard to (1) reliability of existing empirical evidence to inform normative judgements, (2) ethical significance of the social presence of devices and (3) user autonomy in regard to behavioral alignment.

Acceptable objectives of empirical research in bioethics: a qualitative exploration of researchers' views

BACKGROUND

This is the first qualitative study to investigate how researchers, who do empirical work in bioethics, relate to objectives of empirical research in bioethics (ERiB). We explore reasons that make some objectives more acceptable, while others are deemed less acceptable.

METHODS

Using qualitative exploratory study design, we interviewed bioethics researchers, who were selected to represent different types of scholars working in the field. The interview data of 25 participants were analyzed in this paper using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

From the eight objectives presented to the study participants, understanding the context of a bioethical issue and identifying ethical issues in practice received unanimous agreement. Participants also supported other objectives of ERiB but with varying degrees of agreement. The most contested objectives were striving to draw normative recommendations and developing and justifying moral principles. The is-ought gap was not considered an obstacle to ERiB, but rather a warning sign to critically reflect on the normative implications of empirical results.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results show that the most contested objectives are also the more ambitious ones, whereas the least contested ones focus on producing empirical results. The potential of empirical research to be useful for bioethics was mostly based on the reasoning pattern that empirical data can provide a testing ground for elements of normative theory. Even though empirical research can inform many parts of bioethical inquiry, normative expertise is recommended to guide ERiB. The acceptability of ambitious objectives for ERiB boils down to finding firm ground for the integration of empirical facts in normative inquiry.

Bioethics for Neonatal Cardiac Care

BACKGROUND

Clinicians caring for neonates with congenital heart disease encounter challenges with ethical implications in daily practice and must have some basic fluency in ethical principles and practical applications.

METHODS

Good ethical practice begins with a thorough understanding of the details and narrative of each individual case, examination via classic principles of bioethics, and further framing of that translation into practice.

RESULTS

We explore some of these issues and expand awareness through the lens of a case presentation beginning with fetal considerations through end-of-life discussions.

CONCLUSIONS

We include specific sections that bring attention to shared decision-making, research ethics, and outcomes reporting. We review empirical evidence and highlight recommendations.

Forschendes Lernen in der Empirischen Medizinethik

Der Erwerb von Fach- und Forschungskompetenzen kann im besonderen Maße in Lehrveranstaltungen gefördert werden, die Studierende mit der Bewältigung komplexer Probleme konfrontieren. In diesem Artikel stellen wir didaktische Überlegungen zum Forschenden Lernen in der Empirischen Medizinethik dar. Ausgehend von der Theorie des Pragmatismus zeigen wir auf, wie Forschendes Lernen in Lehrangeboten verwirklicht und für die Förderung medizinethischer Kompetenzen genutzt werden kann. Wir fokussieren dabei auf Lehr- und Lernprojekte, in denen die selbstorganisierte Durchführung empirisch-ethischer Forschung für Studierende prozesshaft erfahrbar gemacht werden kann. Solche Lehrangebote bieten große Potenziale, vor allem im Hinblick auf die Erweiterung von Reflexionskompetenzen der Studierenden. Eine Aufnahme solcher Lehrangebote in die fakultative Medizinethik-Lehre wird im Hinblick auf kontextuelle Herausforderungen diskutiert.

Mapping ethical and social aspects of biomarker research and its application in atopic dermatitis and psoriasis - A systematic review of reason

Biomarker research is associated with high hopes for atopic dermatitis/psoriasis research. Although various effective treatments have been developed, many challenges remain concerning diagnostics and the development of targeted treatments, but also regarding a number of ethical and social issues. In this paper, building on a systematic literature review and review of reason, we examine the ethical and social debate on biomarker research for atopic dermatitis/psoriasis. We discuss topics such as risks and benefits of stratification of patient groups, ethical aspects of big data and advanced analytics for biomarker use in atopic dermatitis/psoriasis. Our systematic literature review of reason, based on established methodological standards, includes argument-based ethics publications and scientific literature with implicitly ethically relevant aspects. The first search of biomarker research in dermatology and adjacent fields (e.g., oncology) resulted in a large amount of literature concerning general normative aspects of biomarker research, but suggested a lack of explicit argument-based ethical literature in atopic dermatitis/psoriasis research. We therefore conducted a second systematic search, focusing specifically on atopic dermatitis/psoriasis biomarker research. The 43 relevant articles identified through both systematic searches were clustered into three topic groups: (1) ethical aspects of stratification and precision medicine, (2) digital ethics, and (3) research ethics with a focus on complexity and validation. We found that compared to other fields, such as cancer research, the ethical aspects of atopic dermatitis/psoriasis are rarely explained and addressed in detail. In particular, more work is required on scientific standards, digital ethics and responsible clinical application of biomarkers for atopic dermatitis/psoriasis, patient participation, and ethical implications of biomarker use for children or young people with atopic dermatitis/psoriasis. We close with suggestions on how to address the ethical and social dimension of atopic dermatitis/psoriasis research and practice more directly in future.

Defining ethical challenge(s) in healthcare research: a rapid review

BACKGROUND

Despite its ubiquity in academic research, the phrase 'ethical challenge(s)' appears to lack an agreed definition. A lack of a definition risks introducing confusion or avoidable bias. Conceptual clarity is a key component of research, both theoretical and empirical. Using a rapid review methodology, we sought to review definitions of 'ethical challenge(s)' and closely related terms as used in current healthcare research literature.

METHODS

Rapid review to identify peer-reviewed reports examining 'ethical challenge(s)' in any context, extracting data on definitions of 'ethical challenge(s)' in use, and synonymous use of closely related terms in the general manuscript text. Data were analysed using content analysis. Four databases (MEDLINE, Philosopher's Index, EMBASE, CINAHL) were searched from April 2016 to April 2021.

RESULTS

393 records were screened, with 72 studies eligible and included: 53 empirical studies, 17 structured reviews and 2 review protocols. 12/72 (17%) contained an explicit definition of 'ethical challenge(s), two of which were shared, resulting in 11 unique definitions. Within these 11 definitions, four approaches were identified: definition through concepts; reference to moral conflict, moral uncertainty or difficult choices; definition by participants; and challenges linked to emotional or moral distress. Each definition contained one or more of these approaches, but none contained all four. 68/72 (94%) included studies used terms closely related to synonymously refer to 'ethical challenge(s)' within their manuscript text, with 32 different terms identified and between one and eight different terms mentioned per study.

CONCLUSIONS

Only 12/72 studies contained an explicit definition of 'ethical challenge(s)', with significant variety in scope and complexity. This variation risks confusion and biasing data analysis and results, reducing confidence in research findings. Further work on establishing acceptable definitional content is needed to inform future bioethics research.

Developing new ways to listen: the value of narrative approaches in empirical (bio)ethics

The use of qualitative research in empirical bioethics is becoming increasingly popular, but its implementation comes with several challenges, such as difficulties in aligning moral epistemology and methods. In this paper, we describe some problems that empirical bioethics researchers may face; these problems are related to a tension between the different poles on the spectrum of scientific paradigms, namely a positivist and interpretive stance. We explore the ideas of narrative construction, ‘genres’ in medicine and dominant discourses in relation to empirical research. We also reflect on the loss of depth and context that may occur with thematic or content analyses of interviews, and discuss the need for transparency about methodologies in empirical bioethics. Drawing on insights from narrative approaches in the social sciences and the clinical-educational discipline of Narrative Medicine, we further clarify these problems and suggest a narrative approach to qualitative interviewing in empirical bioethics that enables researchers to ‘listen (and read) in new ways’. We then show how this approach was applied in the first author’s research project about euthanasia decision-making. In addition, we stress the important ethical task of scrutinizing methodologies and meta-ethical standpoints, as they inevitably impact empirical outcomes and corresponding ethical judgments. Finally, we raise the question whether a ‘diagnostic’, rather than a ‘problem-solving’, mindset could and should be foregrounded in empirical ethics, albeit without losing a commitment to ethics’ normative task, and suggest further avenues for theorizing about listening and epistemic (in)justice in relation to empirical (bio)ethics.

South African traditional values and beliefs regarding informed consent and limitations of the principle of respect for autonomy in African communities: a cross-cultural qualitative study

BACKGROUND

The Western-European concept of libertarian rights-based autonomy, which advocates respect for individual rights, may conflict with African cultural values and norms. African communitarian ethics focuses on the interests of the collective whole or community, rather than rugged individualism. Hence collective decision-making processes take precedence over individual autonomy or consent. This apparent conflict may impact informed consent practice during biomedical research in African communities and may hinder ethical principlism in African bioethics. This study explored African biomedical researchers' perspectives regarding informed consent and potential limitations to the principle of respect for autonomy in African communities.

METHODS

We conducted a qualitative study based on in-depth interviews with 12 biomedical researchers, five females and seven males aged 34 to 74 years, currently working at an African university. Interviews lasted 35-40 min each and involved semi-structured open-ended interviews, which allowed participants to offer information about their perceptions and feelings regarding respect for autonomy and informed consent as practised in Africa. Empirical data from the interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analysed using thematic content analysis, together with an interrogation of relevant scientific literature about African communitarian ethics, making evaluations and drawing inferences consistent with the empirical bioethics approach.

RESULTS

Based on these interviews and analysis of relevant literature, we found that informed consent is difficult to apply in an African context because it derives from a Western conception of libertarian rights-based autonomy. Most respondents pointed out that it was challenging to implement informed consent in the African setting. Furthermore, communalism, customary beliefs, spirituality, and relational autonomy are predominant in most African communities, as exemplified by the African moral philosophies of Ubuntu/Botho and Ukama, which emphasize communitarianism over individual rights. We also found that language, education, poverty, and cultural beliefs are barriers to obtaining proper informed consent in African communities.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that there are limitations to applying the principle of respect for autonomy and informed consent in African communities, especially in the context of human biomedical research. We recommend using a more relational approach, such as Ross's prima facie duties, to implement informed consent in African communities.

Design Bioethics: A Theoretical Framework and Argument for Innovation in Bioethics Research

Empirical research in bioethics has developed rapidly over the past decade, but has largely eschewed the use of technology-driven methodologies. We propose "design bioethics" as an area of conjoined theoretical and methodological innovation in the field, working across bioethics, health sciences and human-centred technological design. We demonstrate the potential of digital tools, particularly purpose-built digital games, to align with theoretical frameworks in bioethics for empirical research, integrating context, narrative and embodiment in moral decision-making. Purpose-built digital tools can engender situated engagement with bioethical questions; can achieve such engagement at scale; and can access groups traditionally under-represented in bioethics research and theory. If developed and used with appropriate rigor, tools motivated by "design bioethics" could offer unique insights into new and familiar normative and empirical issues in the field.

Early Genital Surgery in Disorders/Differences of Sex Development: Patients' Perspectives

Controversy continues over a proposed moratorium on elective genital surgery in childhood for disorders/differences of sex development (DSD). Empirical evidence on patient preference is needed to inform decision-making. We conducted a multicentre survey by cross-sectional questionnaire in 14 specialized clinics in six European countries. The sample comprised 459 individuals (≥ 16 years) with a DSD diagnosis, including individuals with congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) (n = 192), XY DSD with prenatal androgen effect (A) (n = 150), and without (nA) (n = 117). Main outcome measures were level of agreement with given statements regarding genital surgery, including clitoris reduction, vaginoplasty, and hypospadias repair. A total of 66% of individuals with CAH and 60% of those with XY DSD-A thought that infancy or childhood were the appropriate age for genital surgery. Females with XY DSD were divided on this issue and tended to prefer vaginoplasty at a later age (XY DSD-A 39%, XY DSD-nA 32%). A total of 47% of males preferred early hypospadias surgery. Only 12% (CAH), 11% (XY DSD-A), and 21% (XY DSD-nA) thought they would have been better off without any surgery in childhood or adolescence. Individuals who had early genital surgery were more likely to approve of it. Outcome data failed to support a general moratorium on early elective genital surgery. Participant perspectives varied considerably by diagnostic category, gender, history of surgery, and contact with support groups. Case-by-case decision-making is better suited to grasping the ethical complexity of the issues at stake.Trial registration: German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00006072.

Mapping, framing, shaping: a framework for empirical bioethics research projects

Background

There is growing interest in the use and incorporation of empirical data in bioethics research. Much of the recent focus has been on specific “empirical bioethics” methodologies, which attempt to integrate the empirical and the normative. Researchers in the field are, however, beginning to explore broader questions, including around acceptable standards of practice for undertaking such research.

The framework:

In this article, we further widen the focus to consider the overall shape of an empirical bioethics research project. We outline a framework that identifies three key phases of such research, which are conveyed via a landscaping metaphor of Mapping-Framing-Shaping. First, the researcher maps the field of study, typically by undertaking literature reviews. Second, the researcher frames particular areas of the field of study, exploring these in depth, usually via qualitative research. Finally, the researcher seeks to (re-)shape the terrain by issuing recommendations that draw on the findings from the preceding phases. To qualify as empirical bioethics research, the researcher will utilise a methodology that seeks to bridge these different elements in order to arrive at normative recommendations. We illustrate the framework by citing examples of diverse projects which broadly adopt the three-phase framework. Amongst the strengths of the framework are its flexibility, since (as the examples indicate) it does not prescribe any specific methods or particular bridging methodology. However, the framework might also have its limitations, not least because it appears particularly to capture projects that involve qualitative – as opposed to quantitative – research.

Conclusions

Despite its possible limitations, we offer the Mapping-Framing-Shaping framework in the hope that this will prove useful to those who are seeking to plan and undertake empirical bioethics research projects.

The value of bioethical research: A qualitative literature analysis of researchers' statements

INTRODUCTION

Value and waste in preclinical and clinical research projects are intensively debated in biomedicine at present. Such different aspects as the need for setting objectives and priorities, improving study design, quality of reporting, and problematic incentives of the academic reward system are addressed. While this debate is also fueled by ethical considerations and thus informed by bioethical research, up to now, the field of bioethics lacks a similar extensive debate. Nonetheless, bioethical research should not go unquestioned regarding its scientific or social value. What exactly constitutes the value of bioethical research, however, remains widely unclear so far.

METHODS

This explorative study investigated possible value dimensions for bioethical research by conducting a qualitative literature analysis of researchers' statements about the value of their studies. 40 bioethics articles published 2015 in four relevant journals (The American Journal of Bioethics, Bioethics, BMC Medical Ethics and Journal of Medical Ethics) were analyzed. The value dimensions of "advancing knowledge" (e.g. research results that are relevant for science itself and for further research) and "application" (e.g. increasing applicability of research results in practice) were used as main deductive categories for the analysis. Further subcategories were inductively generated.

RESULTS

The analysis resulted in 62 subcategories representing a wide range of value dimensions for bioethical research. Of these, 45 were subcategories of "advancing knowledge" and 17 of "application". In 21 articles, no value dimensions related to "application" was found; the remaining 19 articles mentioned "advancing knowledge" as well as "application". The value dimensions related to "advancing knowledge" were, in general, more fine-grained.

CONCLUSIONS

Even though limitations arise regarding the sample, the study revealed a plethora of value dimensions that can inform further debates about what makes bioethical research valuable for science and society. Besides theoretical reflections on the value of bioethics more meta-research in bioethics is needed.

Illness and disease: an empirical-ethical viewpoint

Background

The concepts of disease, illness and sickness capture fundamentally different aspects of phenomena related to human ailments and healthcare. The philosophy and theory of medicine are making manifold efforts to capture the essence and normative implications of these concepts. In parallel, socio-empirical studies on patients’ understanding of their situation have yielded a comprehensive body of knowledge regarding subjective perspectives on health-related statuses. Although both scientific fields provide varied valuable insights, they have not been strongly linked to each other. Therefore, the article aims to scrutinise the normative-ethical implications of patient perspectives in building a bridge to the empirical ethics debates.

Main text

Three potential fields of tension between the illness and the disease perspective are presented. Consequently, findings from empirical research examining patient perspectives on illness are displayed and the practical implications and associated ethical issues which arise are discussed. This leads to the conclusion that an explicit and elaborate empirical-ethical methodology is needed to deal appropriately with the complex interaction between patients’ views and the medico-professional view of disease. Kon’s four-stage model of normative-empirical collaboration is then applied against the background of empirical data on patient perceptions. Starting from this exemplary approach, the article suggests employing empirical-ethical frameworks for further research on the conceptual and normative issues, as they help to integrate perspectives from the philosophy of medicine with socio-empirical research.

Conclusion

The combination of theoretical and empirical perspectives suggested contributes to a more nuanced discussion of the normative impact of patients’ actual understanding of illness. Further empirical research in this area would profit from explicitly considering potential ethical issues to avoid naturalistic fallacies or crypto-normative conclusions that may compromise healthcare practice. Vice versa, medico-theoretical debates could be enriched by integrating subjective views of those people who are immediately affected.

Standards of practice in empirical bioethics research: towards a consensus

BACKGROUND

This paper reports the process and outcome of a consensus finding project, which began with a meeting at the Brocher Foundation in May 2015. The project sought to generate and reach consensus on standards of practice for Empirical Bioethics research. The project involved 16 academics from 5 different European Countries, with a range of disciplinary backgrounds.

METHODS

The consensus process used a modified Delphi approach.

RESULTS

Consensus was reached on 15 standards of practice, organised into 6 domains of research practice (Aims, Questions, Integration, Conduct of Empirical Work, Conduct of Normative Work; Training & Expertise).

CONCLUSIONS

Through articulating these standards we outline a position that encourages responses, and through those responses we will be able to identify points of agreement and contestation that will drive the conversation forward. In that vein, we would encourage researchers, funders and journals to engage with what we have proposed, and respond to us, so that our community of practice of empirical bioethics research can develop and evolve further.

Beyond integrating social sciences: Reflecting on the place of life sciences in empirical bioethics methodologies

Empirical bioethics is commonly understood as integrating empirical research with normative-ethical research in order to address an ethical issue. Methodological analyses in empirical bioethics mainly focus on the integration of socio-empirical sciences (e.g. sociology or psychology) and normative ethics. But while there are numerous multidisciplinary research projects combining life sciences and normative ethics, there is few explicit methodological reflection on how to integrate both fields, or about the goals and rationales of such interdisciplinary cooperation. In this paper we will review some drivers for the tendency of empirical bioethics methodologies to focus on the collaboration of normative ethics with particularly social sciences. Subsequently, we argue that the ends of empirical bioethics, not the empirical methods, are decisive for the question of which empirical disciplines can contribute to empirical bioethics in a meaningful way. Using already existing types of research integration as a springboard, five possible types of research which encompass life sciences and normative analysis will illustrate how such cooperation can be conceptualized from a methodological perspective within empirical bioethics. We will conclude with a reflection on the limitations and challenges of empirical bioethics research that integrates life sciences.

The use of empirical research in bioethics: a survey of researchers in twelve European countries

BACKGROUND

The use of empirical research methods in bioethics has been increasing in the last decades. It has resulted in discussions about the 'empirical turn of bioethics' and raised questions related to the value of empirical work for this field, methodological questions about its quality and rigor, and how this integration of the normative and the empirical can be achieved. The aim of this paper is to describe the attitudes of bioethics researchers in this field towards the use of empirical research, and examine their actual conduct: whether they use empirical research methods (and if so, what methods), and whether (and how) they have made attempts at integrating the empirical and the normative.

METHODS

An anonymous online survey was conducted to reach scholars working in bioethics/biomedical ethics/ethics institutes or centers in 12 European countries. A total of 225 bioethics researchers participated in the study. Of those, 200 questionnaires were fully completed, representing a response rate of 42.6%. The results were analysed using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Most respondents (n = 175; 87.5%) indicated that they use or have used empirical methods in their work. A similar proportion of respondents (61.0% and 59.0%) reported having had at least some training in qualitative or quantitative methods, respectively. Among the 'empirical researchers', more than a fifth (22.9%) had not received any methodological training. It appears that only 6% or less of the 'empirical researchers' considered themselves experts in the methods (qualitative or quantitative) that they have used. Only 35% of the scholars who have used empirical methods reported having integrated empirical data with normative analysis, whereas for their current projects, 59.8% plan to do so.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a need to evaluate the current educational programs in bioethics and to implement rigorous training in empirical research methods to ensure that 'empirical researchers' have the necessary skills to conduct their empirical research in bioethics. Also imperative is clear guidance on the integration of the normative and the empirical so that researchers who plan to do so have necessary tools and competences to fulfil their goals.

[Quality appraisal in systematic reviews of normative literature. A problem analysis]

Systematic reviews aim at searching, selecting, analyzing and synthesizing scientific literature in a transparent and systematic way in order to inform decision-making in the health care system on the basis of the best available evidence. In recent years, such reviews have also gained importance also in bio-, public health- and research ethics, as well as in health technology assessment. Such reviews do not only analyze ethically relevant empirical literature (e.g. on risk and benefit), but normative literature as well, i.e. literature consisting of ethical arguments. As the appraisal of the literature that should be included is paramount for a systematic review, the problem of how to appraise the quality of normative literature arises. This problem has not yet been solved satisfactorily. After developing a pragmatic definition for "normative literature", a typology of different types of systematic reviews of normative literature is presented. Based on existing approaches for quality appraisal, this paper identifies three possible strategies for solving the problem of quality appraisal of normative literature, and discusses their respective strength and weaknesses relative to the different types of systematic reviews. It becomes apparent that none of the existing approaches is able to solve the problem of quality appraisal in a general and convincing way. The paper concludes with stating minimal conditions regarding the elaboration of future strategies, and outlines a promising strategy that is theoretically acceptable and practically feasible.

On classifying the field of medical ethics

In 2014, the editorial board of BMC Medical Ethics came together to devise sections for the journal that would (a) give structure to the journal (b) help ensure that authors’ research is matched to the most appropriate editors and (c) help readers to find the research most relevant to them. The editorial board decided to take a practical approach to devising sections that dealt with the challenges of content management. After that, we started thinking more theoretically about how one could go about classifying the field of medical ethics. This editorial elaborates and reflects on the practical approach that we took at the journal, then considers an alternative theoretically derived approach, and reflects on the possibilities, challenges and value of classifying the field more broadly.

Steps toward improving ethical evaluation in health technology assessment: a proposed framework

Background

While evaluation of ethical aspects in health technology assessment (HTA) has gained much attention during the past years, the integration of ethics in HTA practice still presents many challenges. In response to the increasing demand for expansion of health technology assessment (HTA) methodology to include ethical issues more systematically, this article reports on a multi-stage study that aimed at construction of a framework for improving the integration of ethics in HTA.

Methods

The framework was developed through the following phases: 1) a systematic review and content analysis of guidance documents for ethics in HTA; 2) identification of factors influencing the integration of ethical considerations in HTA; 3) preparation of an action-oriented framework based on the key elements of the existing guidance documents and identified barriers to and facilitators of their implementation; and 4) expert consultation and revision of the framework.

Results

The proposed framework consists of three main components: an algorithmic flowchart, which exhibits the different steps of an ethical inquiry throughout the HTA process, including: defining the objectives and scope of the evaluation, stakeholder analysis, assessing organizational capacity, framing ethical evaluation questions, ethical analysis, deliberation, and knowledge translation; a stepwise guide, which focuses on the task objectives and potential questions that are required to be addressed at each step; and a list of some commonly recommended or used tools to help facilitate the evaluation process.

Conclusions

The proposed framework can be used to support and promote good practice in integration of ethics into HTA. However, further validation of the framework through case studies and expert consultation is required to establish its utility for HTA practice.

Samples and data accessibility in research biobanks: an explorative survey

Biobanks, which contain human biological samples and/or data, provide a crucial contribution to the progress of biomedical research. However, the effective and efficient use of biobank resources depends on their accessibility. In fact, making bio-resources promptly accessible to everybody may increase the benefits for society. Furthermore, optimizing their use and ensuring their quality will promote scientific creativity and, in general, contribute to the progress of bio-medical research. Although this has become a rather common belief, several laboratories are still secretive and continue to withhold samples and data. In this study, we conducted a questionnaire-based survey in order to investigate sample and data accessibility in research biobanks operating all over the world. The survey involved a total of 46 biobanks. Most of them gave permission to access their samples (95.7%) and data (85.4%), but free and unconditioned accessibility seemed not to be common practice. The analysis of the guidelines regarding the accessibility to resources of the biobanks that responded to the survey highlights three issues: (i) the request for applicants to explain what they would like to do with the resources requested; (ii) the role of funding, public or private, in the establishment of fruitful collaborations between biobanks and research labs; (iii) the request of co-authorship in order to give access to their data. These results suggest that economic and academic aspects are involved in determining the extent of sample and data sharing stored in biobanks. As a second step of this study, we investigated the reasons behind the high diversity of requirements to access biobank resources. The analysis of informative answers suggested that the different modalities of resource accessibility seem to be largely influenced by both social context and legislation of the countries where the biobanks operate.

The normative background of empirical-ethical research: first steps towards a transparent and reasoned approach in the selection of an ethical theory

BACKGROUND

Empirical-ethical research constitutes a relatively new field which integrates socio-empirical research and normative analysis. As direct inferences from descriptive data to normative conclusions are problematic, an ethical framework is needed to determine the relevance of the empirical data for normative argument. While issues of normative-empirical collaboration and questions of empirical methodology have been widely discussed in the literature, the normative methodology of empirical-ethical research has seldom been addressed. Based on our own research experience, we discuss one aspect of this normative methodology, namely the selection of an ethical theory serving as a background for empirical-ethical research.

DISCUSSION

Whereas criteria for a good ethical theory in philosophical ethics are usually related to inherent aspects, such as the theory's clarity or coherence, additional points have to be considered in the field of empirical-ethical research. Three of these additional criteria will be discussed in the article: (a) the adequacy of the ethical theory for the issue at stake, (b) the theory's suitability for the purposes and design of the empirical-ethical research project, and (c) the interrelation between the ethical theory selected and the theoretical backgrounds of the socio-empirical research. Using the example of our own study on the development of interventions which support clinical decision-making in oncology, we will show how the selection of an ethical theory as a normative background for empirical-ethical research can proceed. We will also discuss the limitations of the procedures chosen in our project. The article stresses that a systematic and reasoned approach towards theory selection in empirical-ethical research should be given priority rather than an accidental or implicit way of choosing the normative framework for one's own research. It furthermore shows that the overall design of an empirical-ethical study is a multi-faceted endeavor which has to balance between theoretical and pragmatic considerations.

Biobank research, informed consent and society. Towards a new alliance?

With the rise of -omics disciplines and biobank research, personal data and biosamples crossing national borders pose new ethical questions. In this article, informed consent, as originally conceived, is shown as not being sufficient to address aims of research and interests of patients any more. Therefore the author has, after having scrutinised issues in biobanking, sketched a model of dynamic consent and a manner of scrutinising ethical issues through empirical data.