BMC Medical Ethics 12:9- (2011)
|Abstract||Background: The research community has a mandate to discover effective treatments for neurodegenerative disorders. The ethics landscape surrounding this mandate is in a constant state of flux, and ongoing challenges place ever greater demands on investigators to be accountable to the public and to answer questions about the implications of their work for health care, society, and policy. Methods: We surveyed US-based investigators involved in neurodegenerative diseases research about how they value ethics-related issues, what motivates them to give consideration to those issues, and the barriers to doing so. Using the NIH CRISP database we identified 1,034 researchers with relevant, active grants and invited them to complete an online questionnaire. We received 193 responses. We used exploratory factor analysis to transform individual survey questions into a smaller set of factors, and linear regression to understand the effect of key variables of interest on the factor scores. Results: Ethics-related issues clustered into two groups: research ethics and external influences. Heads of research groups viewed issues of research ethics to be more important than the other respondents. Concern about external influences was related to overall interest in ethics. Motivators clustered into five groups: ensuring public understanding, external forces, requirements, values, and press and public. Heads of research groups were more motivated to ensure public understanding of research than the other respondents. Barriers clustered into four groups: lack of resources, administrative burden, relevance to the research, and lack of interest. Perceived lack of ethics resources was a particular barrier for investigators working in drug discovery. Conclusions: The data suggest that senior level neuroscientists working in the field of neurodegeneration (ND), and drug discovery specifically, are motivated to consider ethics issues related to their work, but the perceived lack of ethics resources thwarts their efforts. With bioethics centres at more than 50% of the institutions at which these respondents reside, the neuroscience and bioethics communities appear to be disconnected. Dedicated ethical, legal and social implications (ELSI) programs, such as those fully integrated into genetics and regenerative medicine, provide models for achieving meaningful partnerships not yet adequately realized for scholars and trainees interested in drug discovery for ND|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Robert McGinn (2008). Ethics and Nanotechnology: Views of Nanotechnology Researchers. Nanoethics 2 (2).
Patricia A. Marshall (2005). Human Rights,Cultural Pluralism, and International Health Research. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 26 (6):529-557.
Jacquelyn Slomka (2009). Manufacturing Mistrust: Issues in the Controversy Regarding Foster Children in the Pediatric Hiv/Aids Clinical Trials. Science and Engineering Ethics 15 (4).
Melody J. Slashinski, Sheryl A. McCurdy, Laura S. Achenbaum, Simon N. Whitney & Amy L. McGuire (2012). “Snake-Oil,” “Quack Medicine,” and “Industrially Cultured Organisms:” Biovalue and the Commercialization of Human Microbiome Research. BMC Medical Ethics 13 (1):28-.
Susan Eastwood, Pamela Derish, Evangeline Leash & Stephen Ordway (1996). Ethical Issues in Biomedical Research: Perceptions and Practices of Postdoctoral Research Fellows Responding to a Survey. Science and Engineering Ethics 2 (1).
Patrick L. Taylor (2005). The Gap Between Law and Ethics in Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research: Overcoming the Effect of U.S. Federal Policy on Research Advances and Public Benefit. Science and Engineering Ethics 11 (4):589-616.
Denise E. DeLorme, George M. Sinkhan & Warren French (2001). Ethics and the Internet Issues Associated with Qualitative Research. Journal of Business Ethics 33 (4):271 - 286.
Gail E. Henderson, Eric T. Juengst, Nancy M. P. King, Kristine Kuczynski & Marsha Michie (2012). What Research Ethics Should Learn From Genomics and Society Research: Lessons From the ELSI Congress of 2011. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 40 (4):1008-1024.
Celia B. Fisher (2003). Adolescent and Parent Perspectives on Ethical Issues in Youth Drug Use and Suicide Survey Research. Ethics and Behavior 13 (4):303 – 332.
Ezekiel J. Emanuel (ed.) (2003). Ethical and Regulatory Aspects of Clinical Research: Readings and Commentary. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Jonathan Parker, Bridget Penhale & David Stanley (2011). Research Ethics Review: Social Care and Social Science Research and the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Ethics and Social Welfare 5 (4):380-400.
A. Kehagia, K. Tairyan, C. Federico, G. Glover & J. Illes (2012). More Education, Less Administration: Reflections of Neuroimagers' Attitudes to Ethics Through the Qualitative Looking Glass. Science and Engineering Ethics 18 (4):775-788.
Elyn R. Saks, Dilip V. Jeste, Eric Granholm, Barton W. Palmer & Lawrence Schneiderman (2002). Ethical Issues in Psychosocial Interventions Research Involving Controls. Ethics and Behavior 12 (1):87 – 101.
David L. DeMets (1999). Statistics and Ethics in Medical Research. Science and Engineering Ethics 5 (1).
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2011-06-03
Total downloads3 ( #202,008 of 549,120 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?