1
|
Yoshizawa G, Shinomiya N, Kawamoto S, Kawahara N, Kiga D, Hanaki KI, Minari J. Limiting open science? Three approaches to bottom-up governance of dual-use research of concern. Pathog Glob Health 2023:1-10. [PMID: 37791645 DOI: 10.1080/20477724.2023.2265626] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/05/2023] Open
Abstract
Governing dual-use research of concern (DURC) in the life sciences has become difficult owing to the diversification of scientific domains, digitalization of potential threats, and the proliferation of actors. This paper proposes three approaches to realize bottom-up governance of DURC from laboratory operation to institutional decision-making levels. First, a technological approach can predict and monitor the dual-use nature of the research target pathogens and their information. Second, an interactive approach is proposed in which diverse stakeholders proactively discuss and examine dual-use issues through research practice. Third, a personnel approach can identify the right persons involved in DURC. These approaches suggest that, going beyond self-governance by researchers, collaborative and networked governance involving diverse actors should become essential. This mode of governance can also be seen in light of the management of research use. Therefore, program design by funding agencies and publication screening by journal publishers continuously contribute to governance at the meso-level. Bottom-up governance may be realized by using an appropriately integrated design of these three approaches at the micro-level, such as dual-use prediction and monitoring, stakeholder dialogue, and background checks. Given that the term 'open science' has been promoted to the research community as part of top-down governance, paying due attention on site to research subjects, research practices, and persons involved in research will provide an opportunity to develop a more socially conscious open science.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Go Yoshizawa
- Innovation System Research Center, Kwansei Gakuin University, Hyogo, Japan
| | | | - Shishin Kawamoto
- Graduate School of Science, Hokkaido University, Hokkaido, Japan
| | - Naoto Kawahara
- Center for Clinical and Translational Research, Kyushu University Hospital, Fukuoka, Japan
| | - Daisuke Kiga
- Center for Advanced Biomedical Sciences, School of Advanced Science and Engineering, Waseda University, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Ken-Ichi Hanaki
- Management Department of Biosafety, Laboratory Animal, and Pathogen Bank, National Institute of Infectious Diseases, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Jusaku Minari
- Uehiro Research Division for iPS Cell Ethics, Center for iPS Cell Research and Application, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Ferretti A, Ienca M, Sheehan M, Blasimme A, Dove ES, Farsides B, Friesen P, Kahn J, Karlen W, Kleist P, Liao SM, Nebeker C, Samuel G, Shabani M, Rivas Velarde M, Vayena E. Ethics review of big data research: What should stay and what should be reformed? BMC Med Ethics 2021; 22:51. [PMID: 33931049 PMCID: PMC8085804 DOI: 10.1186/s12910-021-00616-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/23/2020] [Accepted: 04/15/2021] [Indexed: 01/23/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Ethics review is the process of assessing the ethics of research involving humans. The Ethics Review Committee (ERC) is the key oversight mechanism designated to ensure ethics review. Whether or not this governance mechanism is still fit for purpose in the data-driven research context remains a debated issue among research ethics experts. MAIN TEXT In this article, we seek to address this issue in a twofold manner. First, we review the strengths and weaknesses of ERCs in ensuring ethical oversight. Second, we map these strengths and weaknesses onto specific challenges raised by big data research. We distinguish two categories of potential weakness. The first category concerns persistent weaknesses, i.e., those which are not specific to big data research, but may be exacerbated by it. The second category concerns novel weaknesses, i.e., those which are created by and inherent to big data projects. Within this second category, we further distinguish between purview weaknesses related to the ERC's scope (e.g., how big data projects may evade ERC review) and functional weaknesses, related to the ERC's way of operating. Based on this analysis, we propose reforms aimed at improving the oversight capacity of ERCs in the era of big data science. CONCLUSIONS We believe the oversight mechanism could benefit from these reforms because they will help to overcome data-intensive research challenges and consequently benefit research at large.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Agata Ferretti
- Health Ethics and Policy Lab, Department of Health Sciences and Technology, ETH Zürich, Hottingerstrasse 10 (HOA), 8092, Zürich, Switzerland.
| | - Marcello Ienca
- Health Ethics and Policy Lab, Department of Health Sciences and Technology, ETH Zürich, Hottingerstrasse 10 (HOA), 8092, Zürich, Switzerland
| | - Mark Sheehan
- The Ethox Centre, Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Alessandro Blasimme
- Health Ethics and Policy Lab, Department of Health Sciences and Technology, ETH Zürich, Hottingerstrasse 10 (HOA), 8092, Zürich, Switzerland
| | - Edward S Dove
- School of Law, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | | | - Phoebe Friesen
- Biomedical Ethics Unit, Department of Social Studies of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Canada
| | - Jeff Kahn
- Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics, Baltimore, USA
| | - Walter Karlen
- Mobile Health Systems Lab, Department of Health Sciences and Technology, ETH Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland
| | - Peter Kleist
- Cantonal Ethics Committee Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland
| | - S Matthew Liao
- Center for Bioethics, Department of Philosophy, New York University, New York, USA
| | - Camille Nebeker
- Research Center for Optimal Digital Ethics in Health (ReCODE Health), Herbert Wertheim School of Public Health and Longevity Science, University of California, San Diego, USA
| | - Gabrielle Samuel
- Department of Global Health and Social Medicine, King's College London, London, UK
| | - Mahsa Shabani
- Faculty of Law and Criminology, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
| | - Minerva Rivas Velarde
- Department of Radiology and Medical Informatics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Effy Vayena
- Health Ethics and Policy Lab, Department of Health Sciences and Technology, ETH Zürich, Hottingerstrasse 10 (HOA), 8092, Zürich, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|