Hastings Center Report最新文献

Community engagement and participatory research have been appropriately employed to increase the relevance, rigor, and acceptability of all types of research, but these approaches may be particularly important in genomics and biomedical research on sensitive traits such as neurodevelopmental, psychiatric, and behavioral ones. Here, we provide an overview of past and ongoing efforts in community engagement in genomics studies and consider successes and opportunities for further improvement. Informed by this knowledge as well as one of the author's experiences, we set out a vision for a more equitable and collaborative genomics where wider communities, including social, ethnic, and other communities that share a particular trait, are included in the research as peers and collaborators, not solely as objects of study.

The everyday harms of structural racism and discrimination, perpetuated through institutions, laws, policies, and practices, constitute social determinants of health, but measures that account for their debilitating effects are largely missing in genetic studies of complex diseases. Drawing on insights from the social sciences and public health, we propose critical methodologies for incorporating tools that measure structural racism and discrimination within genetic analyses. We illustrate how including these measures may strengthen the accuracy and utility of findings for diverse communities, clarify elusive relationships between genetics and environment in a racialized society, and support greater equity within genomics and precision health research. This approach may also support efforts to build and sustain vital partnerships with communities and with other fields of research inquiry, centering community expertise and lived experiences and drawing on valuable knowledge from practitioners in the social sciences and public health to innovate biomedical and genomic study designs aimed at community health priorities.

Genomics holds significant potential for conservationists, offering tools to monitor species risks, enhance conservation strategies, envision biodiverse futures, and advance climate justice. However, integrating genomics into conservation requires careful consideration of its impacts on biodiversity, the diversity of scientific researchers, and governance strategies for data usage. These factors must be balanced with the varied interests of affected communities and environmental concerns. We argue that conservationists should engage with diverse communities, particularly those historically marginalized and most vulnerable to climate change. This inclusive approach can ensure that genomic technologies are applied ethically and effectively, aligning conservation efforts with broader social and environmental justice goals. Engaging diverse stakeholders will help guide responsible genomic integration, fostering equitable and sustainable conservation outcomes.

Scientific data-sharing and open science initiatives are increasingly important mechanisms for advancing the impact of genomic research. These mechanisms are being implemented as growing attention is paid to the need to improve the inclusion of research participants from marginalized and underrepresented groups. Together, these efforts aim to promote equitable advancements in genomic medicine. However, if not guided by community-informed protections, these efforts may harm the very participants and communities they aim to benefit. This essay examines potential benefits and harms of open science and explores how to advance a more just vision of open science in genomics. Drawing on relational ethics frameworks, we argue that researchers should consider their obligations to participants as well as the broader communities that are impacted by their research. We propose eight strategies to provide a foundation of practical steps for researchers to reduce the possibility of harms stemming from open science and to work toward genomic justice.

Sixty-one million Americans and approximately a billion people worldwide live with some form of disability that limits one or more major life activities. The field of precision medicine continues to grapple with how to best serve disability communities. In this paper, we suggest that precision medicine faces an ethical tension between its goal to treat or cure disabling conditions and views that consider disability as a marginalized identity. We appeal to the concepts of recognition justice and distributive justice to argue that the ELSI community should take a more proactive role in promoting disability inclusion in precision medicine's practice and research. We also highlight two priorities for the ELSI community moving forward: facilitating greater collaboration between genetics and genomic professionals and disability communities and advocating for inclusive research design and disability accommodations in the research process.

As shocking as He Jiankui's genetic experiment resulting in the world's first gene-edited babies may have been, a socioethical inquiry into this paradigmatic case of scientific misconduct reveals its deep roots in genetic and scientific nationalism, as manifested in the widely accepted practice of yousheng (superior birth or eugenics) in China and the country's authoritarian pursuit of science superpower status. Along with eugenics, bionationalism has long been an international phenomenon. A global sociobioethics or ethical transculturalism is thus necessary to adequately investigate the macrolevel sociopolitical, historical, and transnational forces, such as bionationalism, that structurally shape bioethical issues and people's responses to them, causing the systematic undermining of essential bioethical norms and the instrumentalization of human life.