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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |