Cargando…

Ethics and society review: Ethics reflection as a precondition to research funding

Researchers in areas as diverse as computer science and political science must increasingly navigate the possible risks of their research to society. However, the history of medical experiments on vulnerable individuals influenced many research ethics reviews to focus exclusively on risks to human s...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bernstein, Michael S., Levi, Margaret, Magnus, David, Rajala, Betsy A., Satz, Debra, Waeiss, Charla
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: National Academy of Sciences 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8719852/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34934006
http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2117261118
_version_ 1784625028257546240
author Bernstein, Michael S.
Levi, Margaret
Magnus, David
Rajala, Betsy A.
Satz, Debra
Waeiss, Charla
author_facet Bernstein, Michael S.
Levi, Margaret
Magnus, David
Rajala, Betsy A.
Satz, Debra
Waeiss, Charla
author_sort Bernstein, Michael S.
collection PubMed
description Researchers in areas as diverse as computer science and political science must increasingly navigate the possible risks of their research to society. However, the history of medical experiments on vulnerable individuals influenced many research ethics reviews to focus exclusively on risks to human subjects rather than risks to human society. We describe an Ethics and Society Review board (ESR), which fills this moral gap by facilitating ethical and societal reflection as a requirement to access grant funding: Researchers cannot receive grant funding from participating programs until the researchers complete the ESR process for their proposal. Researchers author an initial statement describing their proposed research’s risks to society, subgroups within society, and globally and commit to mitigation strategies for these risks. An interdisciplinary faculty panel iterates with the researchers to refine these risks and mitigation strategies. We describe a mixed-method evaluation of the ESR over 1 y, in partnership with an artificial intelligence grant program run by Stanford HAI. Surveys and interviews of researchers who interacted with the ESR found 100% (95% CI: 87 to 100%) were willing to continue submitting future projects to the ESR, and 58% (95% CI: 37 to 77%) felt that it had influenced the design of their research project. The ESR panel most commonly identified issues of harms to minority groups, inclusion of diverse stakeholders in the research plan, dual use, and representation in datasets. These principles, paired with possible mitigation strategies, offer scaffolding for future research designs.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8719852
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher National Academy of Sciences
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-87198522022-01-21 Ethics and society review: Ethics reflection as a precondition to research funding Bernstein, Michael S. Levi, Margaret Magnus, David Rajala, Betsy A. Satz, Debra Waeiss, Charla Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Social Sciences Researchers in areas as diverse as computer science and political science must increasingly navigate the possible risks of their research to society. However, the history of medical experiments on vulnerable individuals influenced many research ethics reviews to focus exclusively on risks to human subjects rather than risks to human society. We describe an Ethics and Society Review board (ESR), which fills this moral gap by facilitating ethical and societal reflection as a requirement to access grant funding: Researchers cannot receive grant funding from participating programs until the researchers complete the ESR process for their proposal. Researchers author an initial statement describing their proposed research’s risks to society, subgroups within society, and globally and commit to mitigation strategies for these risks. An interdisciplinary faculty panel iterates with the researchers to refine these risks and mitigation strategies. We describe a mixed-method evaluation of the ESR over 1 y, in partnership with an artificial intelligence grant program run by Stanford HAI. Surveys and interviews of researchers who interacted with the ESR found 100% (95% CI: 87 to 100%) were willing to continue submitting future projects to the ESR, and 58% (95% CI: 37 to 77%) felt that it had influenced the design of their research project. The ESR panel most commonly identified issues of harms to minority groups, inclusion of diverse stakeholders in the research plan, dual use, and representation in datasets. These principles, paired with possible mitigation strategies, offer scaffolding for future research designs. National Academy of Sciences 2021-12-21 2021-12-28 /pmc/articles/PMC8719852/ /pubmed/34934006 http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2117261118 Text en Copyright © 2021 the Author(s). Published by PNAS. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This open access article is distributed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License 4.0 (CC BY-NC-ND) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Social Sciences
Bernstein, Michael S.
Levi, Margaret
Magnus, David
Rajala, Betsy A.
Satz, Debra
Waeiss, Charla
Ethics and society review: Ethics reflection as a precondition to research funding
title Ethics and society review: Ethics reflection as a precondition to research funding
title_full Ethics and society review: Ethics reflection as a precondition to research funding
title_fullStr Ethics and society review: Ethics reflection as a precondition to research funding
title_full_unstemmed Ethics and society review: Ethics reflection as a precondition to research funding
title_short Ethics and society review: Ethics reflection as a precondition to research funding
title_sort ethics and society review: ethics reflection as a precondition to research funding
topic Social Sciences
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8719852/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34934006
http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2117261118
work_keys_str_mv AT bernsteinmichaels ethicsandsocietyreviewethicsreflectionasapreconditiontoresearchfunding
AT levimargaret ethicsandsocietyreviewethicsreflectionasapreconditiontoresearchfunding
AT magnusdavid ethicsandsocietyreviewethicsreflectionasapreconditiontoresearchfunding
AT rajalabetsya ethicsandsocietyreviewethicsreflectionasapreconditiontoresearchfunding
AT satzdebra ethicsandsocietyreviewethicsreflectionasapreconditiontoresearchfunding
AT waeisscharla ethicsandsocietyreviewethicsreflectionasapreconditiontoresearchfunding