Researchers' preferences and attitudes on ethical aspects of genomics research: a comparative study between the USA and Spain
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Medical Ethics 35 (4):251-257 (2009)
Introduction: The use of human samples in genomic research has increased ethical debate about informed consent (IC) requirements and the information that subjects should receive regarding the results of the research. However, there are no quantitative data regarding researchers’ attitudes about these issues. Methods: We present the results of a survey of 104 US and 100 Spanish researchers who had published genomic epidemiology studies in 61 journals during 2006. Results: Researchers preferred a broader IC than the IC they had actually obtained in their published papers. US authors were more likely than their Spanish colleagues to support obtaining a broad IC, covering either any future research project or any projects related to a group of diseases (67.6% vs 43%; adjusted OR = 4.84, 95% CI, 2.32 to 10.12). A slight majority of researchers (55.8%) supported informing participants about individual genomic results only if the reliability and clinical validity of the information had been established. Men were more likely than women to believe that patients should be informed of research results even if these conditions were not met (adjusted OR = 2.89, 95% CI = 1.46 to 5.72). Conclusions: This study provides evidence of a wide range of views among scientists regarding some controversial ethical issues related to genomic research, suggesting the need for more study, debate and education. In the interim, journals might consider including the investigators’ policies regarding these ethical issues in the papers they publish in the field of genomic epidemiology
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Keymanthri Moodley, Nomathemba Sibanda, Kelsey February & Theresa Rossouw (2014). “It's My Blood”: Ethical Complexities in the Use, Storage and Export of Biological Samples: Perspectives From South African Research Participants. BMC Medical Ethics 15 (1):4.
Similar books and articles
Ralph W. Giacobbe & Madhav N. Segal (2000). A Comparative Analysis of Ethical Perceptions in Marketing Research: U.S.A. Vs. Canada. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 27 (3):229 - 245.
Laura Weiss Roberts & Timothy L. McAuliffe (2006). Investigators' Affirmation of Ethical, Safeguard, and Scientific Commitments in Human Research. Ethics and Behavior 16 (2):135 – 150.
Pat Auger, Timothy M. Devinney & Jordan J. Louviere (2007). Using Best–Worst Scaling Methodology to Investigate Consumer Ethical Beliefs Across Countries. Journal of Business Ethics 70 (3):299 - 326.
Bonnie E. Glaser & Lisa A. Bero (2005). Attitudes of Academic and Clinical Researchers Toward Financial Ties in Research: A Systematic Review. Science and Engineering Ethics 11 (4):553-573.
Donald A. Saucier & Mary E. Cain (2006). The Foundations of Attitudes About Animal Research. Ethics and Behavior 16 (2):117 – 133.
Robert McGinn (2010). Ethical Responsibilities of Nanotechnology Researchers: A Short Guide. [REVIEW] NanoEthics 4 (1):1-12.
Y. Ilker Topcu (2010). Have Ethical Perceptions Changed? A Comparative Study on the Ethical Perceptions of Turkish Faculty Members. Journal of Academic Ethics 8 (2):137-151.
Antonio Argandoña (1999). Business Ethics in Spain. Journal of Business Ethics 22 (3):155 - 173.
Lenny Moss (2006). Redundancy, Plasticity, and Detachment: The Implications of Comparative Genomics for Evolutionary Thinking. Philosophy of Science 73 (5):930-946.
Eugene D. Jaffe & Alexandr Tsimerman (2005). Business Ethics in a Transition Economy: Will the Next Russian Generation Be Any Better? [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 62 (1):87 - 97.
Mohammed Y. A. Rawwas, Gordon L. Patzer & Scott J. Vitell (1998). A Cross-Cultural Investigation of the Ethical Values of Consumers: The Potential Effect of War and Civil Disruption. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 17 (4):435 - 448.
Robert McGinn (2008). Ethics and Nanotechnology: Views of Nanotechnology Researchers. [REVIEW] NanoEthics 2 (2):101-131.
C. D. Herrera (2003). A Clash of Methodology and Ethics in `Undercover' Social Science. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 33 (3):351-362.
S. W. Kelley, O. C. Ferrell & S. J. Skinner (1990). Ethical Behavior Among Marketing Researchers: An Assessment of Selected Demographic Characteristics. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 9 (8):681 - 688.
Laura Weiss Roberts, Teddy D. Warner, Laura B. Dunn, Janet L. Brody, Katherine Green Hammond & Brian B. Roberts (2007). Shaping Medical Students' Attitudes Toward Ethically Important Aspects of Clinical Research: Results of a Randomized, Controlled Educational Intervention. Ethics and Behavior 17 (1):19 – 50.
Added to index2010-09-13
Total downloads4 ( #622,425 of 1,932,454 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #456,114 of 1,932,454 )
How can I increase my downloads?