Movatterモバイル変換

Bioethicists influence practices and policies in medicine, science, and public health. However, little is known about bioethicists’ views. We recently surveyed 824 U.S. bioethicists on a wide range of ethical issues, including topics related to abortion, medical aid in dying, and resource allocation, among others. We also asked bioethicists about their demographic, religious, academic, and professional backgrounds. We find that bioethicists’ normative commitments predict their views on bioethical issues. We also find that, in important ways, bioethicists’ views do not align (...) with those of the U.S. public: for instance, bioethicists are more likely than members of the public to think abortion is ethically permissible but are less likely to believe compensating organ donors is. Our demographic results indicate the field of bioethics is far less diverse than the U.S. population—less diverse even than other academic disciplines—suggesting far more work needs to be done to build an inclusive field. (shrink)

Direct download(2 more)   Export citation   Bookmark   22 citations  

Most public and non-profit organisations that fund health research provide the majority of their funding in the form of grants. The calls for grant applications are often untargeted, such that a wide variety of applications may compete for the same funding. The grant review process therefore plays a critical role in determining how limited research resources are allocated. Despite this, little attention has been paid to whether grant review criteria align with widely endorsed ethical criteria for allocating health research resources. (...) Here, we analyse the criteria and processes that ten of the largest public and non-profit research funders use to choose between competing grant applications. Our data suggest that research funders rarely instruct reviewers to consider disease burden or to prioritise research for sicker or more disadvantaged populations, and typically only include scientists in the review processes. This is liable to undermine efforts to link research funding to health needs. (shrink)

Direct download(3 more)   Export citation   Bookmark   4 citations  

This correspondence piece responds to commentaries on the authors' survey of U.S. bioethicists. The authors address two key questions: the definition of a bioethicist and how bioethics should evolve. They identify four distinct roles bioethicists occupy: researchers, pedagogues, consultants, and advocates/activists. The article examines various aspects of inclusiveness in bioethics - demographic, viewpoint, methodological, and topical - while acknowledging inherent tensions and trade-offs between them. For example, including religiously or geographically diverse voices may conflict with other inclusivity goals. The authors (...) argue that while demographic inclusiveness is crucial, other forms of inclusiveness require careful consideration of trade-offs and empirical research to assess their impacts. They emphasize the need for systematic research on bioethicists' beliefs and reasoning, particularly regarding complex issues like disability and racial health disparities. The piece concludes by calling for continued dialogue and better funding for empirical research on ethical perspectives across different groups. (shrink)

Direct download(5 more)   Export citation   Bookmark  

We respond to open peer commentaries on our target article, "Health Research Priority Setting: The Duties of Individual Funders".

Direct download(4 more)   Export citation   Bookmark   1 citation  

Volume 25, Issue 1, January 2025, Page W3-W7.

Direct download(2 more)   Export citation   Bookmark  

The research we fund today will improve the health of people who will live tomorrow. But future people will not all benefit equally: decisions we make about what research to prioritize will predictably affect when and how much different people benefit from research. Organizations that fund health research should thus fairly account for the health needs of future populations when setting priorities. To this end, some research funders aim to allocate research resources in accordance with disease burden, prioritizing illnesses that (...) cause more morbidity and mortality. In this article, I defend research funders' practice of aligning research funding with disease burden but argue that funders should aim to align research funding with future—rather than present—disease burden. I suggest that research funders should allocate research funding in proportion to aggregated estimates of disease burden over the period when research could plausibly start to yield benefits until indefinitely into the future. (shrink)

Direct download(2 more)   Export citation   Bookmark  

Hundreds of millions of rare biospecimens are stored in laboratories and biobanks around the world. Often, the researchers who possess these specimens do not plan to use them, while other researchers limit the scope of their work because they cannot acquire biospecimens that meet their needs. This situation raises an important and underexplored question: how should scientists allocate biospecimens that they do not intend to use? We argue that allocators should aim to maximise the social value of the research enterprise (...) when allocating scarce biospecimens. We provide an ethical framework for assessing the social value of proposed research projects and describe how the framework could be implemented. (shrink)

Direct download(6 more)   Export citation   Bookmark  

Direct download(3 more)   Export citation   Bookmark   1 citation  

In When Clinical Trials Compete: Prioritizing Study Recruitment, Gelinas et al tackle an important issue—study non-completion—and draw conclusions with which we largely agree. Most importantly, we accept that setting priorities among competing research studies is necessary and should be informed by ethical analysis. We disagree with the conclusion of Gelinas et al that this priority setting should take place at the level of the individual research institution. At a minimum, they should consider other actors who might be better suited for (...) this role instead of—or alongside—the institutions that host research. Our view is motivated by three main considerations. First, research institutions have significant latitude to promote their own interests, and there is reason to suspect that their interests do not closely align with the interests of the public. Thus, asking research institutions to set research priorities may result in the selection of studies with suboptimal social value. Second, a large proportion of clinical trials recruits participants at multiple institutions.1 If each institution sets its own priorities, we can expect discrepancies between the priorities set by partner institutions. These discrepancies may delay and discourage collaborative research projects. Finally, we suspect that a great deal of recruitment competition occurs between, rather than within, research institutions. Setting priorities only at …. (shrink)

Direct download(5 more)   Export citation   Bookmark   1 citation