Suchergebnisse

The author takes the position that both epidemiology and bioethics, as practiced within academic establishments, have largely although not entirely abstracted the public context of health and well-being from their respective disciplines. It is argued that by and large both disciplines have been highly successful at what they do. However, this success can in part be attributed to each limiting its ability to look beyond its respective academic niche and thus embrace challenges which are socially challenging, politically charged, and academically messy. This narrow focus has become self-serving and ultimately detracts from fundamental remits of both disciplines in protecting the public from harm. Furthermore, it may re-enforce the inequalities of research into health overall, whereby the greatest concentration of effort remains firmly focused upon those who already have the most. Currently marginalized approaches to each of these disciplines–such as social epidemiology, global bioethics, and critical bioethics–provide us with platforms that challenge mainstream academic epidemiologists and bioethicists to seek out and reconnect their expertise with questions that are more relevant to real-world situations.

AbstractThe following paper discusses the importance of establishing communication channels between academia, the media, and the public with respect to the development of biotechnology within Sub‐Saharan Africa. Citing evidence from interviews with specialists in genetic science, science journalism and public education, the paper reflects on the problems associated with developing multidisciplinary discussion within academic circles, communication between natural scientists and the media, and ultimately the exchange of knowledge between science and society. The major findings from these interviews is that while there is a shared objective and realisation that science communication is important for the development of the region, this objective is hampered by a lack of understanding and trust between scientists and the scientific media. A pattern of mistrust has developed whereby local experts tend to talk to journalists from outside the region rather than from Africa. As a result, there is little opportunity for scientists and the media to communicate the relevance of genetics and biotechnology for the region's development. By way of conclusion, the paper discusses the positive indicators for science communication across the region, based on demand for knowledge, empowerment of scientists and the public, and the urgency of the regional food crisis. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Anthropological insights into the use of race/ethnicity to explore genetic contributions to disparities in health were developed using in-depth qualitative interviews with editorial staff from nineteen genetics journals, focusing on the methodological and conceptual mechanisms required to make race/ethnicity a genetic variable. As such, these analyses explore how and why race/ethnicity comes to be used in the context of genetic research, set against the background of continuing critiques from anthropology and related human sciences that focus on the social construction, structural correlates and limited genetic validity of racial/ethnic categories. The analyses demonstrate how these critiques have failed to engage geneticists, and how geneticists use a range of essentially cultural devices to protect and separate their use of race/ethnicity as a genetic construct from its use as a societal and social science resource. Given its multidisciplinary, biosocial nature and the cultural gaze of its ethnographic methodologies, anthropology is well placed to explore the cultural separation of science and society, and of natural and social science disciplines. Anthropological insights into the use of race/ethnicity to explore disparities in health suggest that moving beyond genetic explanations of innate difference might benefit from a more even-handed critique of how both the natural and social sciences tend to essentialize selective elements of race/ethnicity. Drawing on the example of HIV/AIDS, this paper demonstrates how public health has been undermined by the use of race/ethnicity as an analytical variable, both as a cipher for innate genetic differences in susceptibility and response to treatment, and in its use to identify 'core groups' at greater risk of becoming infected and infecting others. Clearly, a tendency for biological reductionism can place many biomedical issues beyond the scope of public health interventions, while socio-cultural essentialization has tended to stigmatize 'unhealthy behaviours' and the communities where these are more prevalent.

AbstractGrounded in research carried out by researchers investigating different aspects of technological and institutional innovation in agriculture in Sub‐Saharan Africa (SSA), this special issue seeks to make a contribution to empirical evidence and literature on agricultural innovation globally. The contributors explore the relationship between technology, policy and public engagement approaches and wider concepts of technology development and governance, and collectively argue for a broadened perspective on innovation towards generating new ways of thinking that can ultimately improve upon existing practices in the quest for sustainable solutions to food insecurity. Overall, this is not a negative story. Instead of the now common despair about the abilities of Africa to meet it is own food‐security requirements, this issue presents articles which demonstrate how much is already in place, with reflections and suggestions on how such resources can be made to work together for the greater socio‐economic good of the continent Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The capacity of next-generation closed-loop or adaptive deep brain stimulation devices (aDBS) to read (measure neural activity) and write (stimulate brain regions or circuits) shows great potential to effectively manage movement, seizure, and psychiatric disorders, and also raises the possibility of using aDBS to electively (non-therapeutically) modulate mood, cognition, and prosociality. What separates aDBS from most neurotechnologies (e.g. transcranial stimulation) currently used for enhancement is that aDBS remains an invasive, surgically-implanted technology with a risk-benefit ratio significantly different when applied to diseased versus non-diseased individuals. Despite a large discourse about the ethics of enhancement, no empirical studies yet examine perspectives on enhancement from within the aDBS research community. We interviewed 23 aDBS researchers about their attitudes toward expanding aDBS use for enhancement. A thematic content analysis revealed that researchers share ethical concerns related to (1) safety and security; (2) enhancement as unnecessary, unnatural or aberrant; and (3) fairness, equality, and distributive justice. Most (70%) researchers felt that enhancement applications for DBS will eventually be technically feasible and that attempts to develop such applications for DBS are already happening (particularly for military purposes). However, researchers unanimously (100%) felt that DBS ideally should not be considered for enhancement until researchers better understand brain target localization and functioning. While many researchers acknowledged controversies highlighted by scholars and ethicists, such as potential impacts on personhood, authenticity, autonomy and privacy, their ethical concerns reflect considerations of both gravity and perceived near-term likelihood.

INTRODUCTION: Implementation of genome-scale sequencing in clinical care has significant challenges: the technology is highly dimensional with many kinds of potential results, results interpretation and delivery require expertise and coordination across multiple medical specialties, clinical utility may be uncertain, and there may be broader familial or societal implications beyond the individual participant. Transdisciplinary consortia and collaborative team science are well poised to address these challenges. However, understanding the complex web of organizational, institutional, physical, environmental, technologic, and other political and societal factors that influence the effectiveness of consortia is understudied. We describe our experience working in the Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research (CSER) consortium, a multi-institutional translational genomics consortium. METHODS: A key aspect of the CSER consortium was the juxtaposition of site-specific measures with the need to identify consensus measures related to clinical utility and to create a core set of harmonized measures. During this harmonization process, we sought to minimize participant burden, accommodate project-specific choices, and use validated measures that allow data sharing. RESULTS: Identifying platforms to ensure swift communication between teams and management of materials and data were essential to our harmonization efforts. Funding agencies can help consortia by clarifying key study design elements across projects during the proposal preparation phase and by providing a framework for data sharing data across participating projects. CONCLUSIONS: In summary, time and resources must be devoted to developing and implementing collaborative practices as preparatory work at the beginning of project timelines to improve the effectiveness of research consortia.