分子系统工程科学家如何确定研究伦理?

Q1 Arts and Humanities AJOB Empirical Bioethics Pub Date : 2024-07-01 Epub Date: 2024-01-09 DOI:10.1080/23294515.2024.2302994
Renan Gonçalves Leonel da Silva, Alessandro Blasimme, Effy Vayena, Kelly E Ormond
{"title":"分子系统工程科学家如何确定研究伦理?","authors":"Renan Gonçalves Leonel da Silva, Alessandro Blasimme, Effy Vayena, Kelly E Ormond","doi":"10.1080/23294515.2024.2302994","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":38118,"journal":{"name":"AJOB Empirical Bioethics","volume":" ","pages":"226-235"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11299911/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How Do Molecular Systems Engineering Scientists Frame the Ethics of Their Research?\",\"authors\":\"Renan Gonçalves Leonel da Silva, Alessandro Blasimme, Effy Vayena, Kelly E Ormond\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/23294515.2024.2302994\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":38118,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"AJOB Empirical Bioethics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"226-235\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11299911/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"AJOB Empirical Bioethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/23294515.2024.2302994\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/9 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AJOB Empirical Bioethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23294515.2024.2302994","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:关于生物医学工程的伦理和社会影响的讨论十分激烈,但很少有数据表明科学家是如何思考其工作的伦理问题的。本研究旨在以分子系统工程领域为重点,描述科学家是如何构建其研究伦理的:作为一项大型研究的一部分,在 2021-2022 年期间进行了半结构化定性访谈。本分析包括一个关于参与者如何看待与其工作相关的伦理的广泛问题,以及关于他们认为最重要的主题的后续探究。访谈内容由两名研究人员进行誊写、归纳编码以达成共识,并进行专题分析:24 位科学家参与了研究。受访者在美国和欧洲的大学或研究机构中担任教授、首席研究员和高级研究人员。在对工作中的伦理问题进行反思的科学家中,许多人将伦理等同于研究伦理主题(如安全性、可复制性),或等同于法规和指导方针。与会者认为,伦理问题主要与生物工程产品的临床试验有关,或与动物或人类受试者有关。科学家们认为他们的研究 "为时过早 "或 "没有研究任何有生命的东西"。最后,许多人认为伦理被视为专家的领地,因此超出了科学家的能力范围:结论:分子系统工程科学家目前将监管方面作为伦理分析的框架。他们介绍说,他们使用一个框架来界定生命何时出现,以此来确定何时需要进一 步开展伦理工作。需要开展进一步研究,调查科学家如何看待其科学工作中的伦理问题,并围绕生物工程系统的生命、自主行为和生理相关性等概念达成共识。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
AJOB Empirical Bioethics
AJOB Empirical Bioethics Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
期刊最新文献
Enhancing Animals is "Still Genetics": Perspectives of Genome Scientists and Policymakers on Animal and Human Enhancement. Associations Between the Legalization and Implementation of Medical Aid in Dying and Suicide Rates in the United States. Ethics Consultation in U.S. Pediatric Hospitals: Adherence to National Practice Standards. Monitored and Cared for at Home? Privacy Concerns When Using Smart Home Health Technologies to Care for Older Persons. Advance Medical Decision-Making Differs Across First- and Third-Person Perspectives.
×
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