Consideration and Disclosure of Group Risks in Genomics and Other Data-Centric Research: Does the Common Rule Need Revision?

IF 17 1区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS American Journal of Bioethics Pub Date : 2025-02-01 Epub Date: 2023-11-27 DOI:10.1080/15265161.2023.2276161
Carolyn Riley Chapman, Gwendolyn P Quinn, Heini M Natri, Courtney Berrios, Patrick Dwyer, Kellie Owens, Síofra Heraty, Arthur L Caplan
{"title":"Consideration and Disclosure of Group Risks in Genomics and Other Data-Centric Research: Does the Common Rule Need Revision?","authors":"Carolyn Riley Chapman, Gwendolyn P Quinn, Heini M Natri, Courtney Berrios, Patrick Dwyer, Kellie Owens, Síofra Heraty, Arthur L Caplan","doi":"10.1080/15265161.2023.2276161","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Harms and risks to groups and third-parties can be significant in the context of research, particularly in data-centric studies involving genomic, artificial intelligence, and/or machine learning technologies. This article explores whether and how United States federal regulations should be adapted to better align with current ethical thinking and protect group interests. Three aspects of the Common Rule deserve attention and reconsideration with respect to group interests: institutional review board (IRB) assessment of the risks/benefits of research; disclosure requirements in the informed consent process; and criteria for waivers of informed consent. In accordance with respect for persons and communities, investigators and IRBs should systematically consider potential group harm when designing and reviewing protocols, respectively. Research participants should be informed about any potential group harm in the consent process. We call for additional public discussion, empirical research, and normative analysis on these issues to determine the right regulatory and policy path forward.</p>","PeriodicalId":50962,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Bioethics","volume":" ","pages":"47-60"},"PeriodicalIF":17.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11167719/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Bioethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2023.2276161","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/11/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Harms and risks to groups and third-parties can be significant in the context of research, particularly in data-centric studies involving genomic, artificial intelligence, and/or machine learning technologies. This article explores whether and how United States federal regulations should be adapted to better align with current ethical thinking and protect group interests. Three aspects of the Common Rule deserve attention and reconsideration with respect to group interests: institutional review board (IRB) assessment of the risks/benefits of research; disclosure requirements in the informed consent process; and criteria for waivers of informed consent. In accordance with respect for persons and communities, investigators and IRBs should systematically consider potential group harm when designing and reviewing protocols, respectively. Research participants should be informed about any potential group harm in the consent process. We call for additional public discussion, empirical research, and normative analysis on these issues to determine the right regulatory and policy path forward.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
基因组学和其他以数据为中心的研究中群体风险的考虑和披露:共同规则需要修订吗?
在研究背景下,特别是在涉及基因组、人工智能和/或机器学习技术的以数据为中心的研究中,对群体和第三方的危害和风险可能是重大的。本文探讨了是否以及如何调整美国联邦法规,以更好地与当前的伦理思想保持一致,并保护群体利益。就群体利益而言,共同规则的三个方面值得关注和重新考虑:机构审查委员会(IRB)对研究风险/收益的评估;知情同意程序中的披露要求;以及放弃知情同意的标准。根据对个人和社区的尊重,调查人员和内部审查委员会在设计和审查方案时应分别系统地考虑潜在的群体伤害。在同意过程中,应告知研究参与者任何潜在的群体伤害。我们呼吁对这些问题进行更多的公众讨论、实证研究和规范分析,以确定正确的监管和政策路径。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
American Journal of Bioethics
American Journal of Bioethics 社会科学-科学史与科学哲学
CiteScore
12.30
自引率
26.90%
发文量
250
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Bioethics (AJOB) is a renowned global publication focused on bioethics. It tackles pressing ethical challenges in the realm of health sciences. With a commitment to the original vision of bioethics, AJOB explores the social consequences of advancements in biomedicine. It sparks meaningful discussions that have proved invaluable to a wide range of professionals, including judges, senators, journalists, scholars, and educators. AJOB covers various areas of interest, such as the ethical implications of clinical research, ensuring access to healthcare services, and the responsible handling of medical records and data. The journal welcomes contributions in the form of target articles presenting original research, open peer commentaries facilitating a dialogue, book reviews, and responses to open peer commentaries. By presenting insightful and authoritative content, AJOB continues to shape the field of bioethics and engage diverse stakeholders in crucial conversations about the intersection of medicine, ethics, and society.
期刊最新文献
Agent-Regret in Healthcare. Consideration and Disclosure of Group Risks in Genomics and Other Data-Centric Research: Does the Common Rule Need Revision? Digital Doppelgängers and Lifespan Extension: What Matters? Fitting Agent-Regret in Healthcare. Looking Beyond the IRB.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1