转化生物伦理学与公众投入

Q2 Social Sciences Ethics & human research Pub Date : 2023-06-27 DOI:10.1002/eahr.500175
John H. Evans
{"title":"转化生物伦理学与公众投入","authors":"John H. Evans","doi":"10.1002/eahr.500175","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>Translational science is justified as advancing the public's interests but has no mechanism for determining these interests. Standard social science approaches would produce either unrepresentative descriptions or a cacophony of data not easily condensed into a concrete conclusion about moving forward with a translational-science project. Here, I propose that the simplifying and structuring ethics employed by institutional review boards (IRBs) be used to create social science reports of the four to six most prominent values or principles of the public regarding a biotechnology. A board of bioethicists would weigh and balance these values to conclude whether the public supports a given translational-science innovation.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":36829,"journal":{"name":"Ethics & human research","volume":"45 4","pages":"35-39"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Translational Bioethics and Public Input\",\"authors\":\"John H. Evans\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/eahr.500175\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n <p>Translational science is justified as advancing the public's interests but has no mechanism for determining these interests. Standard social science approaches would produce either unrepresentative descriptions or a cacophony of data not easily condensed into a concrete conclusion about moving forward with a translational-science project. Here, I propose that the simplifying and structuring ethics employed by institutional review boards (IRBs) be used to create social science reports of the four to six most prominent values or principles of the public regarding a biotechnology. A board of bioethicists would weigh and balance these values to conclude whether the public supports a given translational-science innovation.</p>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36829,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ethics & human research\",\"volume\":\"45 4\",\"pages\":\"35-39\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ethics & human research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eahr.500175\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethics & human research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eahr.500175","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

转化科学被认为是促进公众利益的,但没有确定这些利益的机制。标准的社会科学方法要么会产生不具代表性的描述,要么会产生不和谐的数据,这些数据不容易浓缩成关于推进转化科学项目的具体结论。在这里,我建议机构审查委员会(irb)采用的简化和结构化伦理被用来创建关于公众对生物技术的四到六个最突出的价值观或原则的社会科学报告。一个由生物伦理学家组成的委员会将权衡和平衡这些价值,以得出公众是否支持特定的转化科学创新的结论。
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
Translational Bioethics and Public Input

Translational science is justified as advancing the public's interests but has no mechanism for determining these interests. Standard social science approaches would produce either unrepresentative descriptions or a cacophony of data not easily condensed into a concrete conclusion about moving forward with a translational-science project. Here, I propose that the simplifying and structuring ethics employed by institutional review boards (IRBs) be used to create social science reports of the four to six most prominent values or principles of the public regarding a biotechnology. A board of bioethicists would weigh and balance these values to conclude whether the public supports a given translational-science innovation.

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
Ethics & human research
Ethics & human research Social Sciences-Health (social science)
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
35
期刊最新文献
Issue Information The Prospect of Artificial Intelligence-Supported Ethics Review Ethical Issues Faced by Data Monitoring Committees: Results from an Exploratory Qualitative Study The Ethical Case for Decentralized Clinical Trials The European Health Data Space as a Case Study
×
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