11 found
Order:
Disambiguations
Michelle N. Meyer [11]Michelle Nicole Meyer [1]
  1.  49
    Wrestling with Social and Behavioral Genomics: Risks, Potential Benefits, and Ethical Responsibility.Michelle N. Meyer, Paul S. Appelbaum, Daniel J. Benjamin, Shawneequa L. Callier, Nathaniel Comfort, Dalton Conley, Jeremy Freese, Nanibaa' A. Garrison, Evelynn M. Hammonds, K. Paige Harden, Sandra Soo-Jin Lee, Alicia R. Martin, Daphne Oluwaseun Martschenko, Benjamin M. Neale, Rohan H. C. Palmer, James Tabery, Eric Turkheimer, Patrick Turley & Erik Parens - 2023 - Hastings Center Report 53 (S1):2-49.
    In this consensus report by a diverse group of academics who conduct and/or are concerned about social and behavioral genomics (SBG) research, the authors recount the often‐ugly history of scientific attempts to understand the genetic contributions to human behaviors and social outcomes. They then describe what the current science—including genomewide association studies and polygenic indexes—can and cannot tell us, as well as its risks and potential benefits. They conclude with a discussion of responsible behavior in the context of SBG research. (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  2.  25
    Wrestling with Public Input on an Ethical Analysis of Scientific Research.Erik Parens, Michelle N. Meyer, Patrick Turley, Sandra Soo-Jin Lee, Nanibaa’ A. Garrison, Shawneequa L. Callier & Daphne Oluwaseun Martschenko - 2023 - Hastings Center Report 53 (2):S50-S65.
    Bioethicists frequently call for empirical researchers to engage participants and community members in their research, but don't themselves typically engage community members in their normative research. In this article, we describe an effort to include members of the public in normative discussions about the risks, potential benefits, and ethical responsibilities of social and behavioral genomics (SBG) research. We reflect on what might—and might not— be gained from engaging the public in normative scholarship and on lessons learned about public perspectives on (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  3.  34
    Regulating Research with Biospecimens under the Revised Common Rule.Holly Fernandez Lynch & Michelle N. Meyer - 2017 - Hastings Center Report 47 (3):3-4.
    Since 2011, the research community had waited with bated breath as regulators contemplated for the first time bringing secondary research with nonidentifiable biospecimens under the Common Rule and dramatically tightening the criteria for waiving consent to biospecimen research. After considerable pushback from both researchers and patients and amid rumors of intractable disagreement among Common Rule agencies, the Final Rule published on the last day of President Obama's administration left out these troubling changes, and there was a collective sigh of relief. (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  4.  23
    There Oughta Be a Law: When Does(n’t) the U.S. Common Rule Apply?Michelle N. Meyer - 2020 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 48 (S1):60-73.
    Using mobile health research as an extended example, this article provides an overview of when the Common Rule “applies” to a variety of activities, what might be meant when one says that the Common Rule does or does not “apply,” the extent to which these different meanings of “apply” matter, and, when the Common Rule does apply, how it applies.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  5.  59
    The kindness of strangers: The donative contract between subjects and researchers and the non-obligation to return individual results of genetic research.Michelle N. Meyer - 2008 - American Journal of Bioethics 8 (11):44 – 46.
  6.  32
    Allocation of Opportunities to Participate in Clinical Trials during the Covid‐19 Pandemic and Other Public Health Emergencies.Kayte Spector-Bagdady, Holly Fernandez Lynch, Barbara E. Bierer, Luke Gelinas, Sara Chandros Hull, David Magnus, Michelle N. Meyer, Richard R. Sharp, Jeremy Sugarman, Benjamin S. Wilfond, Ruqaiijah Yearby & Seema Mohapatra - 2021 - Hastings Center Report 52 (1):51-58.
    Hastings Center Report, Volume 52, Issue 1, Page 51-58, January/February 2022.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  7. Synthetic Health Data: Real Ethical Promise and Peril.Daniel Susser, Daniel S. Schiff, Sara Gerke, Laura Y. Cabrera, I. Glenn Cohen, Megan Doerr, Jordan Harrod, Kristin Kostick-Quenet, Jasmine McNealy, Michelle N. Meyer, I. I. W. Nicholson Price & Jennifer K. Wagner - 2024 - Hastings Center Report 54 (5).
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  8.  1
    Synthetic Health Data: Real Ethical Promise and Peril.Daniel Susser, Daniel S. Schiff, Sara Gerke, Laura Y. Cabrera, I. Glenn Cohen, Megan Doerr, Jordan Harrod, Kristin Kostick-Quenet, Jasmine McNealy, Michelle N. Meyer, W. Nicholson Price & Jennifer K. Wagner - 2024 - Hastings Center Report 54 (5):8-13.
    Researchers and practitioners are increasingly using machine‐generated synthetic data as a tool for advancing health science and practice, by expanding access to health data while—potentially—mitigating privacy and related ethical concerns around data sharing. While using synthetic data in this way holds promise, we argue that it also raises significant ethical, legal, and policy concerns, including persistent privacy and security problems, accuracy and reliability issues, worries about fairness and bias, and new regulatory challenges. The virtue of synthetic data is often understood (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  9.  19
    From Evidence‐Based Medicine to Evidence‐Based Practice.Michelle N. Meyer - 2013 - Hastings Center Report 43 (2):11-12.
    As a recent special report in the Hastings Center Report demonstrates, many bioethicists are rethinking the way we regulate both biomedical research and clinical practice, as well as the sharp boundary that the field has assumed can and should exist between them. Such a rethinking is long overdue. There is surely a meaningful normative distinction between activities whose expected risk‐benefit profile is and is not “reasonable” for participants (to echo the language in the Common Rule—the core set of human research (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  10.  18
    The Subject–Researcher Relationship: In Defense of Contracting Around Default Rules.Michelle N. Meyer - 2011 - American Journal of Bioethics 11 (4):27-30.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  11.  45
    The More Things Change: The New NIH Guidelines on Human Stem Cell Research.Michelle N. Meyer & James W. Fossett - 2009 - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 19 (3):289-307.
    Many assumed that the Obama administration would usher in a sea change from the previous administration by expanding NIH support for human embryonic stem cell (hESC) research and reducing the patchwork of state and federal regulations that currently governs it. This article examines the extent to which NIH’s new Guidelines are likely to accomplish these goals.
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark