Dataset Information

Disparate foundations of scientists' policy positions on contentious biomedical research.

ABSTRACT: What drives scientists' position taking on matters where empirical answers are unavailable or contradictory? We examined the contentious debate on whether to limit experiments involving the creation of potentially pandemic pathogens. Hundreds of scientists, including Nobel laureates, have signed petitions on the debate, providing unique insights into how scientists take a public stand on important scientific policies. Using 19,257 papers published by participants, we reconstructed their collaboration networks and research specializations. Although we found significant peer associations overall, those opposing "gain-of-function" research are more sensitive to peers than are proponents. Conversely, specializing in fields directly related to gain-of-function research (immunology, virology) predicts public support better than specializing in fields related to potential pathogenic risks (such as public health) predicts opposition. These findings suggest that different social processes might drive support compared with opposition. Supporters are embedded in a tight-knit scholarly community that is likely both more familiar with and trusting of the relevant risk mitigation practices. Opponents, on the other hand, are embedded in a looser federation of widely varying academic specializations with cognate knowledge of disease and epidemics that seems to draw more heavily on peers. Understanding how scientists' social embeddedness shapes the policy actions they take is important for helping sides interpret each other's position accurately, avoiding echo-chamber effects, and protecting the role of scientific expertise in social policy.

SUBMITTER: Edelmann A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5474814 | biostudies-other | 2017 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Disparate foundations of scientists' policy positions on contentious biomedical research.

Edelmann Achim A Moody James J Light Ryan R

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 20170530 24

What drives scientists' position taking on matters where empirical answers are unavailable or contradictory? We examined the contentious debate on whether to limit experiments involving the creation of potentially pandemic pathogens. Hundreds of scientists, including Nobel laureates, have signed petitions on the debate, providing unique insights into how scientists take a public stand on important scientific policies. Using 19,257 papers published by participants, we reconstructed their collabor ...[more]

PMID: 28559310

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:The rapid expansion of direct-to-consumer wearable fitness products (eg, Flex 2, Fitbit) and research-grade sensors (eg, SenseCam, Microsoft Research; activPAL, PAL Technologies) coincides with new opportunities for biomedical and behavioral researchers. Underserved communities report among the highest rates of chronic disease and could benefit from mobile technologies designed to facilitate awareness of health behaviors. However, new and nuanced ethical issues are introduced with new technologies, which are challenging both institutional review boards (IRBs) and researchers alike. Given the potential benefits of such technologies, ethical and regulatory concerns must be carefully considered. OBJECTIVE:Our aim was to understand potential barriers to using wearable sensors among members of Latino, Somali and Native Hawaiian Pacific Islander (NHPI) communities. These ethnic groups report high rates of disparate health conditions and could benefit from wearable technologies that translate the connection between physical activity and desired health outcomes. Moreover, these groups are traditionally under-represented in biomedical research. METHODS:We independently conducted formative research with individuals from southern California, who identified as Latino, Somali, or Native Hawaiian Pacific Islander (NHPI). Data collection methods included survey (NHPI), interview (Latino), and focus group (Somali) with analysis focusing on cross-cutting themes. RESULTS:The results pointed to gaps in informed consent, challenges to data management (ie, participant privacy, data confidentiality, and data sharing conventions), social implications (ie, unwanted attention), and legal risks (ie, potential deportation). CONCLUSIONS:Results shed light on concerns that may escalate the digital divide. Recommendations include suggestions for researchers and IRBs to collaborate with a goal of developing meaningful and ethical practices that are responsive to diverse research participants who can benefit from technology-enabled research methods. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02505165; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02505165 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.Webcitation.org/6r9ZSUgoT).

Project description:BackgroundThe time taken, or 'time lags', between biomedical/health research and its translation into health improvements is receiving growing attention. Reducing time lags should increase rates of return to such research. However, ways to measure time lags are under-developed, with little attention on where time lags arise within overall timelines. The process marker model has been proposed as a better way forward than the current focus on an increasingly complex series of translation 'gaps'. Starting from that model, we aimed to develop better methods to measure and understand time lags and develop ways to identify policy options and produce recommendations for future studies.MethodsFollowing reviews of the literature on time lags and of relevant policy documents, we developed a new approach to conduct case studies of time lags. We built on the process marker model, including developing a matrix with a series of overlapping tracks to allow us to present and measure elements within any overall time lag. We identified a reduced number of key markers or calibration points and tested our new approach in seven case studies of research leading to interventions in cardiovascular disease and mental health. Finally, we analysed the data to address our study's key aims.ResultsThe literature review illustrated the lack of agreement on starting points for measuring time lags. We mapped points from policy documents onto our matrix and thus highlighted key areas of concern, for example around delays before new therapies become widely available. Our seven completed case studies demonstrate we have made considerable progress in developing methods to measure and understand time lags. The matrix of overlapping tracks of activity in the research and implementation processes facilitated analysis of time lags along each track, and at the cross-over points where the next track started. We identified some factors that speed up translation through the actions of companies, researchers, funders, policymakers, and regulators. Recommendations for further work are built on progress made, limitations identified and revised terminology.ConclusionsOur advances identify complexities, provide a firm basis for further methodological work along and between tracks, and begin to indicate potential ways of reducing lags.

Project description:The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the United Nations Global Strategy (2016-30) emphasize that all women, children and adolescents 'survive, thrive and transform'. A key element of this global policy framework is that gender equality is a stand-alone goal as well as a cross-cutting priority. Gender inequality and intersecting social and structural determinants shape health systems, including the content of policy documents, with implications for implementation. This article applies a gender lens to policy documents by national government bodies that have mandates on adolescent health in South Africa. Data were 15 policy documents, authored between 2003 and 2018, by multiple actors. The content analysis was guided by key lines of enquiry, and policy documents were classified along the continuum of gender blind to gender transformative. Only three policy documents defined gender, and if gender was addressed, it was mostly in gender-sensitive ways, at times gender specific, but rarely gender transformative. Building on this, a critical discourse analysis identified what is problematized and what is left unproblematized by actors, identifying the key interrelated dominant and marginalized discourses, as well as the 'silences' embedded in policy documents. The discourse analysis revealed that dominant and marginalized discourses reflect how gender is conceptualized as fixed, categorical identities, vs as fluid social processes, with implications for how rights and risks are understood. The discourses substantiate an over-riding focus on adolescent girls, outside of the context of power relations, with minimal attention to boys in terms of their own health or through a gender lens, as well as little consideration of LGBTIQ+ adolescents beyond HIV. Dynamic and complex relationships exist between the South Africa context, actors, content and processes, in shaping both how gender is problematized and how 'solutions' are represented in these policies. How gender is conceptualized matters, both for policy analysis and for praxis, and policy documents can be part of foundations for transforming gender and intersecting power relations.

Project description:IntroductionThe Biomedical Scientist (BMS) role is established in healthcare, working in laboratory environments to provide diagnostic testing and to monitor treatment effects on a patients' health. The profession is subject to several professional standards which highlight the importance of working in the best interests of the patient and service user. However, Biomedical Scientists have little or no patient contact. This study aimed to determine how Biomedical Scientists evidence that they meet the professional standards and support the achievement of patient outcomes.Materials and methodsThis study utilised a Delphi method to explore the opinions of professional stakeholders to determine whether there was consensus for how this professional group contributes to patient outcomes and offers evidence that they are working in the best interests of the patient. The qualitative 1st round of the study consisted of focus groups and interviews with staff and students on the BSc Biomedical Science awards, Professional, Statutory and Regulatory body (PSRB) representatives and Biomedical Scientists from the National Health Service (NHS). The first-round responses were analysed using thematic analysis which then generated attitude statements which participants scored using a 5-point Likert scale in the 2nd round. Consensus or divergence of opinion was determined based upon a 70% consensus level within each participant group and overall.ResultsFollowing analysis of the 2nd round data, there was divergence of opinion across all stakeholders, with consensus rates being highest in the Biomedical Scientist group (72.7% of statements reached 70% consensus), followed by the student group (54.5% of statements reached 70% consensus) and lowest in the academic group (40.9% of statements reached 70% consensus).DiscussionThis demonstrates a theory-practice gap in both the academic and student groups, suggesting that graduates are insufficiently prepared for their post-graduate role. This gap was particularly evident when discussing topics such as how Biomedical Scientists contribute to patient care, professional registration and working as part of the multi-disciplinary team (MDT). The identification of a theory-practice gap in the education of Biomedical Scientists is a novel finding, indicating that students may graduate with insufficient understanding of the Biomedical Scientist role.

Dataset Information

Disparate foundations of scientists' policy positions on contentious biomedical research.

Publications

Disparate foundations of scientists' policy positions on contentious biomedical research.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets