Public bioethics and publics: consensus, boundaries, and participation in biomedical science policy

Novel methods of qualitative analysis for health policy research

Background

Currently, thanks to the growing number of public database resources, most evidence on planning and management, healthcare institutions, policies and practices is becoming available to everyone. However, one of the limitations for the advancement of data and literature-driven research has been the lack of flexibility of the methodological resources used in qualitative research. There is a need to incorporate friendly, cheaper and faster tools for the systematic, unbiased analysis of large data corpora, in particular regarding the qualitative aspects of the information (often overlooked).

Methods

This article proposes a series of novel techniques, exemplified by the case of the role of Institutional Committees of Bioethics to (1) massively identify the documents relevant to a given issue, (2) extract the fundamental content, focusing on qualitative analysis, (3) synthesize the findings in the published literature, (4) categorize and visualize the evidence, and (5) analyse and report the results.

Results

A critical study of the institutional role of public health policies and practices in Institutional Committees of Bioethics was used as an example application of the method. Interactive strategies were helpful to define and conceptualise variables, propose research questions and refine research interpretation. These methods are additional aids to systematic reviews, pre-coding schemes and construction of a priori diagrams to survey and analyse social science literature.

Conclusions

These novel methods have proven to facilitate the formulation and testing of hypotheses on the subjects to be studied. Such tools may allow important advances going from descriptive approaches to decision-making and even institutional assessment and policy redesign, by pragmatic reason of time and costs.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12961-018-0404-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

“Stop Talking to People; Talk with Them”: A Qualitative Study of Information Needs and Experiences Among Genetic Research Participants in Pakistan and Denmark

This article explores how research participants experienced information practices in an international genetic research collaboration involving the collection of biomaterial and clinical data in both Pakistan and Denmark. We investigated how people make sense of their research participation and the types of information they need and desire. We found great variation in what information exchange does and what participants experience as meaningful. For example, information practices could serve as a source of respect and recognition (in Denmark) or of hope, understanding or help when dealing with suffering (in Pakistan). Policies aimed at harmonizing ethics standards for international research do not encapsulate some of the most important aspects of information practices for the research participants involved. We suggest shifting the focus from standards of one-way information delivery to a more process-oriented form of research ethics, where the contextual exploration of local needs through a mutual engagement with participants gains more ground.

Integrating Public Health and Deliberative Public Bioethics: Lessons from the Human Genome Project Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications Program

Public health policy works best when grounded in firm public health standards of evidence and widely shared social values. In this article, we argue for incorporating a specific method of ethical deliberation--deliberative public bioethics--into public health. We describe how deliberative public bioethics is a method of engagement that can be helpful in public health. Although medical, research, and public health ethics can be considered some of what bioethics addresses, deliberative public bioethics offers both a how and where. Using the Human Genome Project Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications program as an example of effective incorporation of deliberative processes to integrate ethics into public health policy, we examine how deliberative public bioethics can integrate both public health and bioethics perspectives into three areas of public health practice: research, education, and health policy. We then offer recommendations for future collaborations that integrate deliberative methods into public health policy and practice.

Methods of legitimation: how ethics committees decide which reasons count in public policy decision-making

In recent years, liberal democratic societies have struggled with the question of how best to balance expertise and democratic participation in the regulation of emerging technologies. This study aims to explain how national deliberative ethics committees handle the practical tension between scientific expertise, ethical expertise, expert patient input, and lay public input by explaining two institutions' processes for determining the legitimacy or illegitimacy of reasons in public policy decision-making: that of the United Kingdom's Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) and the United States' American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM). The articulation of these 'methods of legitimation' draws on 13 in-depth interviews with HFEA and ASRM members and staff conducted in January and February 2012 in London and over Skype, as well as observation of an HFEA deliberation. This study finds that these two institutions employ different methods in rendering certain arguments legitimate and others illegitimate: while the HFEA attempts to 'balance' competing reasons but ultimately legitimizes arguments based on health and welfare concerns, the ASRM seeks to 'filter' out arguments that challenge reproductive autonomy. The notably different structures and missions of each institution may explain these divergent approaches, as may what Sheila Jasanoff (2005) terms the distinctive 'civic epistemologies' of the US and the UK. Significantly for policy makers designing such deliberative committees, each method differs substantially from that explicitly or implicitly endorsed by the institution.

Bringing in the controversy: re-politicizing the de-politicized strategy of ethics committees

Human/animal relations are potentially controversial and biotechnologically produced animals and animal-like creatures – bio-objects such as transgenics, clones, cybrids and other hybrids – have often created lively political debate since they challenge established social and moral norms. Ethical issues regarding the human/animal relations in biotechnological developments have at times been widely debated in many European countries and beyond. However, the general trend is a move away from parliamentary and public debate towards institutionalized ethics and technified expert panels. We explore by using the conceptual lens of bio-objectification what effects such a move can be said to have.

In the bio-objectification process, unstable bio-object becomes stabilized and receives a single “bio-identity” by closing the debate. However, we argue that there are other possible routes bio-objectification processes can take, routes that allow for more open-ended cases. By comparing our observations and analyses of deliberations in three different European countries we will explore how the bio-objectification process works in the context of animal ethics committees. From this comparison we found an interesting common feature: When animal biotechnology is discussed in the ethics committees, technical and pragmatic matters are often foregrounded. We noticed that there is a common silence around ethics and a striking consensus culture. The present paper, seeks to understand how the bio-objectification process works so as to silence complexity through consensus as well as to discuss how the ethical issues involved in animal biotechnology could become re-politicized, and thereby made more pluralistic, through an “ethos of controversies”.

Social Positioning Theory as a lens for exploring health information seeking and decision making

In this article I use Social Positioning Theory to explore the experiences of women as they interact with and make sense of evolving health information mediated by formal and informal sources. I investigate how women position themselves within their accounts of information seeking, and the influence of positioning on interactions with health professionals (HPs). Interviewed women gathered and valued information from a range of sources, and were likely to position themselves as autonomous, rather than collaborative or dependent. Faced with evolving health information, women felt responsible not only for information seeking, but also for making sense of gathered and encountered information. Participants did, however, value information provided by HPs and were likely to view decision making as collaborative when HPs fostered information exchange, appeared to appreciate different types of knowledge and cognitive authority, and supported women in their quests for information. Implications for shared decision making are discussed.

Body work in assisted conception: exploring public and private settings

Body work has been foregrounded in recent sociological writings on health and social care, particularly the emotional labour of patient care. In this article I explore the social and emotional dimensions of body work in assisted conception in private and public National Health Service (NHS) clinics. Drawing on an ethnographic study, I explore how tensions around bodily attributes, treatment costs, clinic performance and the extent of consumer sovereignty were managed in decisions about who to treat and in what manner. In NHS settings, body work involved efforts to standardise and constrain bodies in line with an ethics of justice that included the co-construction of protocols and performance measurement and a strong emphasis upon teamwork and influencing the behaviour of the sector as a whole. In contrast, body work in private settings was more overtly organised around an ethos of individual consumption that emphasised bespoke treatment together with an active critique of the regulator, based on a strong entrepreneurial ethos. Emotional labour in private settings was also more overt. I conclude by exploring the implications of my analysis for the study of assisted conception, the sociology of body work and the further marketisation and deregulation of medicine.

Producing ‘Human Elements Based Medical Technologies’ in Biotech Companies: Some Ethical and Organisational Ingredients for Innovative Cooking

This article is based on the findings of an EU-funded qualitative research project, entitled ‘From GMP to GBP: Fostering good bioethics practices [GBP] among the European biotechnology industry’, which seeks to improve the understanding of bioethical issues through the observation of the daily practices in European biotechnology companies and proposes a methodology approaching ethical issues. The comparative study was carried out in biotech companies in France, Italy, Sweden, Hungary and Belgium which develop a wide range of new technologies, all of them involving human materials or where human subjects participate (in clinical trials). Based on our findings in these local settings, we suggest that the notion of bioethics and the way its production is theorised need to be re-conceptualised. We argue that material practices and moral statements are intermingled in inextricable ways that render the formation of bioethical concerns fully dependent on the organisational landscape in which it is embedded. More precisely, the here presented co-production model of moral statements and organisational practices presents a set of common factors that influence how bioethical discourses are shaped, despite the heterogeneity of their epistemic cultures. For example, the procedural design of cell-based-products, the modes of collecting and storing biological specimen, the relationship between patients and companies and technological transfers to emerging countries are defining components that contribute to the shaping process of bioethical concerns. Thus, the path dependency of bioethical concerns relies on an already existing, specific infrastructure and existing relationships within and outside a company rather than on external judgement subsequently applied to its objects, or a collection of processes of reasoning coming from external institutions.

From 'implications' to 'dimensions': science, medicine and ethics in society

Much bioethical scholarship is concerned with the social, legal and philosophical implications of new and emerging science and medicine, as well as with the processes of research that under-gird these innovations. Science and technology studies (STS), and the related and interpenetrating disciplines of anthropology and sociology, have also explored what novel technoscience might imply for society, and how the social is constitutive of scientific knowledge and technological artefacts. More recently, social scientists have interrogated the emergence of ethical issues: they have documented how particular matters come to be regarded as in some way to do with ‘ethics’, and how this in turn enjoins particular types of social action. In this paper, I will discuss some of this and other STS (and STS-inflected) literature and reflect on how it might complement more ‘traditional’ modes of bioethical enquiry. I argue that STS might (1) cast new light on current bioethical issues, (2) direct the gaze of bioethicists towards matters that may previously have escaped their attention, and (3) indicate the import not only of the ethical implications of biomedical innovation, but also how these innovative and other processes feature ethics as a dimension of everyday laboratory and clinical work. In sum, engagements between STS and bioethics are increasingly important in order to understand and manage the complex dynamics between science, medicine and ethics in society.

Anticipatory Governance: Bioethical Expertise for Human/Animal Chimeras

The governance demands generated by the use of human/animal chimeras in scientific research offer both a challenge and an opportunity for the development of new forms of anticipatory governance through the novel application of bioethical expertise. Anticipatory governance can be seen to have three stages of development whereby bioethical experts move from a reactive to a proactive stance at the edge of what is scientifically possible. In the process, the ethicists move upstream in their engagement with the science of human-to-animal chimeras. To what extent is the anticipatory coestablishment of the principles and operational rules of governance at this early stage in the development of the human-to-animal research field likely to result in a framework for bioethical decision making that is in support of science? The process of anticipatory governance is characterised by the entwining of the scientific and the philosophical so that judgements against science are also found to be philosophically unfounded, and conversely, those activities that are permissible are deemed so on both scientific and ethical grounds. Through what is presented as an organic process, the emerging bioethical framework for human-to-animal chimera research becomes a legitimating framework within which 'good' science can safely progress. Science gives bioethical expertise access to new governance territory; bioethical expertise gives science access to political acceptability.

Governing the moral economy: animal engineering, ethics and the liberal government of science

The preferred Western model for science governance has come to involve attending to the perspectives of the public. In practice, however, this model has been criticised for failing to promote democracy along participatory lines. We argue that contemporary approaches to science policy making demonstrate less the failure of democracy and more the success of liberal modes of government in adapting to meet new governance challenges. Using a case study of recent UK policy debates on scientific work mixing human and animal biological material, we show first how a ‘moral economy’ is brought into being as a regulatory domain and second how this domain is governed to align cultural with scientific values. We suggest that it is through these practices that the state assures its aspirations for enhancing individual and collective prosperity through technological advance are met.

Public bioethics and public engagement: the politics of "proper talk"

This article uses notions of "public talk" and "regulation as facilitation" to develop an account of public bioethics in the UK as a form of scientific governance, drawing on document analysis and expert interviews. First, this article will show the "ethical" problematization of scientific governance in the UK through the emergence of the Human Genetics Commission (HGC), Nuffield Council on Bioethics (NCB), and Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA). Second, it will argue that an "ethical" model has emerged alongside and partially displaced a "technical" model of expertise in scientific governance. The article will introduce the notion of "proper talk," a set of techniques for facilitating ethical debate, characterized by the active elicitation of public engagement and the inclusion of emotions and subjectivity. The article then questions whether the authority to categorize publics and identify "proper" ethical positions reintroduces problems of expertise in a new form.

Three ways to politicize bioethics

Many commentators today lament the politicization of bioethics, but some suggest distinguishing among different kinds of politicization. This essay pursues that idea with reference to three traditions of political thought: liberalism, communitarianism, and republicanism. After briefly discussing the concept of politicization itself, the essay examines how each of these political traditions manifests itself in recent bioethics scholarship, focusing on the implications of each tradition for the design of government bioethics councils. The liberal emphasis on the irreducible plurality of values and interests in modern societies, and the communitarian concern with the social dimensions of biotechnology, offer important insights for bioethics councils. The essay finds the most promise in the republican tradition, however, which emphasizes institutional mechanisms that allow bioethics councils to enrich but not dominate public deliberation, while ensuring that government decisions on bioethical issues are publicly accountable and contestable.

Engaging Boundary Objects in OMS and STS? Exploring the Subtleties of Layered Engagement

This paper considers STS aspirations to engage with the field of Organization and Management Studies (OMS). It does so by investigating the employability of the concept of boundary object in OMS. Through an extensive literature review, the paper shows that rather than a simple engagement between STS and OMS the relation between the two consists of multi-layered (non-)engagements. The paper shows that the `successful' uptake of and the active engagement with the concept of boundary object in OMS cannot simply be regarded as a (successful) engagement of STS with OMS. The situated and contingent character of what counts as successful engagement explains the tensions that arise when a concept is taken up in a new field.

Biobanks, bioethics and concepts of donated blood in the UK

In recent years international bioethics bodies have made prominent declarations about the uses of donated tissue and related information in genetic research(1). Following the 'legislative' mode of bioethics(2), these organisations have put forward a number of general principles with a view to promoting the fair and equitable use of donated tissue in such research. However, government policies in this field are shaped differently in different national regimes. In this paper, I use recent debates in the UK about a national genetic 'biobank' to illustrate how the shape and texture of policy discussions surrounding the use of donated blood for genetic research have been built upon a prior national consensus that regarded blood as a public good.

Public consultation in ethics: an experiment in representative ethics

Genome Canada has funded a research project to evaluate the usefulness of different forms of ethical analysis for assessing the moral weight of public opinion in the governance of genomics. This paper will describe a role of public consultation for ethical analysis and a contribution of ethical analysis to public consultation and the governance of genomics/biotechnology. Public consultation increases the robustness of ethical analysis with a more diverse set of moral experiences. Consultation must be carefully and respectfully designed to generate sufficiently diverse and rich accounts of moral experiences. Since dominant groups tend to define ethical or policy issues in a manner that excludes some interests or perspectives, it is important to identify the range of interests that diverse publics hold before defining the issue and scope of the discussion and the premature foreclosure of ethical dialogue. Consequently, a significant contribution of ethical dialogue strengthened by social analysis is to consider the context and non-policy use of power to govern genomics and to sustain social debate on enduring ethical issues.