An Ethics Framework for Evaluating Ownership Practices in Biomedical Citizen Science.

Q1 Multidisciplinary Citizen Science Theory and Practice Pub Date : 2022-01-01 DOI:10.5334/cstp.537
Christi J Guerrini, Amy L McGuire
{"title":"An Ethics Framework for Evaluating Ownership Practices in Biomedical Citizen Science.","authors":"Christi J Guerrini,&nbsp;Amy L McGuire","doi":"10.5334/cstp.537","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The collaborative nature of citizen science raises important questions about managing ownership of its research outputs. Potential citizen science research outputs include data sets, findings, publications, and discoveries of new ideas, methods, products, and technologies. Unlike citizen science projects conducted in other disciplines, biomedical citizen science projects often include features, such as contribution of personal health data, that might heighten citizen scientists' expectations that they will be able to access, control, or share in the benefits of project outputs. Here, we refer to moral claims of access, control, and benefit as ownership claims, and a project's management of ownership claims as its ownership practices. Ethical management of ownership is widely recognized as an important consideration for citizen science projects, and practitioners and scholars have described helpful recommendations for preempting issues and engaging stakeholders on practices. Building on this literature, we propose a framework to help biomedical citizen science projects systematically evaluate the ethical soundness of their ownership practices based on four considerations: reciprocal treatment, relative treatment, risk-benefit assessment, and reasonable expectations.</p>","PeriodicalId":32270,"journal":{"name":"Citizen Science Theory and Practice","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10237586/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Citizen Science Theory and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5334/cstp.537","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Multidisciplinary","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The collaborative nature of citizen science raises important questions about managing ownership of its research outputs. Potential citizen science research outputs include data sets, findings, publications, and discoveries of new ideas, methods, products, and technologies. Unlike citizen science projects conducted in other disciplines, biomedical citizen science projects often include features, such as contribution of personal health data, that might heighten citizen scientists' expectations that they will be able to access, control, or share in the benefits of project outputs. Here, we refer to moral claims of access, control, and benefit as ownership claims, and a project's management of ownership claims as its ownership practices. Ethical management of ownership is widely recognized as an important consideration for citizen science projects, and practitioners and scholars have described helpful recommendations for preempting issues and engaging stakeholders on practices. Building on this literature, we propose a framework to help biomedical citizen science projects systematically evaluate the ethical soundness of their ownership practices based on four considerations: reciprocal treatment, relative treatment, risk-benefit assessment, and reasonable expectations.

Abstract Image

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
生物医学公民科学中评估所有权实践的伦理框架。
公民科学的合作性质提出了管理其研究成果所有权的重要问题。潜在的公民科学研究成果包括数据集、发现、出版物以及新思想、新方法、新产品和新技术的发现。与在其他学科开展的公民科学项目不同,生物医学公民科学项目通常包括个人健康数据的贡献等特点,这可能会提高公民科学家的期望,即他们将能够访问、控制或分享项目产出的利益。在这里,我们将访问、控制和利益的道德要求称为所有权要求,而将项目对所有权要求的管理称为其所有权实践。所有权的伦理管理被广泛认为是公民科学项目的一个重要考虑因素,从业者和学者已经提出了一些有用的建议,以预防问题和吸引利益相关者参与实践。在此文献的基础上,我们提出了一个框架,以帮助生物医学公民科学项目系统地评估其所有权实践的伦理合理性,该框架基于四个考虑因素:互惠待遇、相对待遇、风险-收益评估和合理预期。
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
Citizen Science Theory and Practice
Citizen Science Theory and Practice Multidisciplinary-Multidisciplinary
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
25
审稿时长
45 weeks
期刊最新文献
Snap Decisions: Assessing Participation and Data Quality in a Citizen Science Program Using Repeat Photography Diversifying Large-Scale Participatory Science: The Efficacy of Engagement through Facilitator Organizations &ldquo;Every Small Action Helps Towards the Greater Cause:&rdquo; Online Communities Scaling Up Online Community-Led Citizen Science in Addressing Litter Challenges in Scotland Cross-Project Analysis of Volunteers’ Scientific Observation Skills Citizen Scientist Participation in Research on Private Lands Positively Impacts Multiple Conservation Behaviors
×
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