Search

There are intense discussions about the ethical and societal implications of biomedical engineering, but little data to suggest how scientists think about the ethics of their work. The aim of this study is to describe how scientists frame the ethics of their research, with a focus on the field of molecular systems engineering. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted during 2021–2022, as part of a larger study. This analysis includes a broad question about how participants view ethics as related to their work, with follow up probes about the topics they consider most important. Interviews were transcribed, inductively coded by two researchers to consensus, and analyzed thematically. Twenty-four scientists participated in the study. Interviewees hold positions as professors, principal investigators, and senior staff researchers in universities or research institutes in the United States and Europe. Among those scientists who reported reflecting on ethical considerations in their work, many equated ethics with research ethics topics (e.g., safety, replicability), or with regulation and guidelines. Participants expressed the view that ethical issues are primarily relevant for clinical trials of bioengineered products, or for those working with animal or human subjects. Scientists described their research as "too early" or "not examining anything living" with regard to ethical reflection. Finally, many felt that ethics is seen as territory for experts and therefore beyond scientists' competencies. Molecular systems engineering scientists currently focus on regulatory aspects as the framework for their ethical analyses. They describe using a framework to define when life arises, as a means to determine when further ethical engagement is warranted. Further research is needed to investigate how scientists relate to the ethics of their scientific work, and build consensus around concepts of life, autonomous behavior, and physiological relevance of bioengineered systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent research has challenged the notion that dementia is an inevitable outcome of age-related cognitive decline, highlighting the possibility of preventing or delaying onset by addressing specific risk factors. This paradigm shift suggests that prevention through lifestyle modifications and early interventions is possible, potentially averting millions of cases worldwide. This study explores the translation of scientific evidence on dementia prevention into public health policy in Switzerland. Combining the analysis of official policy documents and qualitative interviews with stakeholders, the study explores potential barriers and challenges to implementing preventive intervenions or programs, as well as opportunities for improvement. Results indicate a significant gap in incorporating emerging scientific evidence on dementia prevention into health policies and disseminating information to the public in Switzerland. This study underscores the need for a collaborative and coordinated approach to address these barriers and effectively translate scientific findings into preventive policies and campaigns. These insights can inform policy and targeted programs in Switzerland both at the federal and the cantonal level, eventually serving as a model for other countries seeking to translate evidence-based dementia prevention strategies into public health policies. By bridging the gap between research and policy, significant progress can be made in preventing or delaying the onset of dementia, providing significant benefits to individuals, families, and society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents the discussion on Machine learning (ML) having highly transformative approaches to the automation of numerous clinical tasks. Topics include computer scientists being most concerned with demonstrating the superiority of ML-driven systems at performing classificatory or predictive tasks; and focusing on ensuring the safety and effectiveness of medical devices, software, and drugs before receiving market authorization.

This study reports on 13 semistructured in-depth interviews to qualitatively explore the experiences of individuals who publicly shared their direct-to-consumer genetic testing results on the platform openSNP. In particular, we focused on interviewees' understanding of privacy. Participants reported that the likelihood and the magnitude of privacy harms depend on gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, the stigma associated with certain clinical conditions, the existence of adequate legislation, and the nature of national health care systems. Some participants expressed the view that those who enjoy higher socioeconomic status or are better protected by their country's legislation have a responsibility to share their genetic data. Our study shows that people who share their genetic data publicly online—far from being insensitive to privacy risks—have a complex understanding of the social, relational, and contextual nature of genetic privacy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the challenges in finding a suitable expression in French to refer to CRISPR-Cas9, referencing the article ""Editing" genes: A case study about how language matters in bioethics" by M. O'Keefe and colleagues within the issue. Topics mentioned include how adopting the English wording would oppose a national language being a civic asset, the principle of dialogic responsibility, and the use of the expression targeted genome engineering to refer to CRISPR-Cas9 in general.

The article talks about informed consent of the participants in medical research and the disclosure of clinical results to the participants. Topics discussed include the field of genomic research, the patients undergoing genome sequencing and seeking information on the incidental findings, and the concept of the disclosure of results being a right of the patients.

The authors discuss the report "Do researchers have an obligation to actively look for genetic incidental findings?" by C. Gliwa and B. E. Berkman from the volume 13, number 2013 issue, which looks at ethical considerations related to the disclosure of secondary research results. It is noted that not all researchers in a project posses the expertise to accurately interpret incidental findings. Particular focus is given to pediatric genomics and the disclosure of autosomal recessive disorders.

The authors discuss the article "The argument from potentiality in the embryo protection debate: Finally 'depotentialized'?" by M. S. Stier and B. Schoene-Seifert from the volume 13 number 1, 2013 issue, with particular focus on the ethics and regulation of human embryonic stem cell (hESC) research. They argue that scientific evidence on cellular reprogramming necessitates changes to hESC research policies based on the potentiality argument (PA) of the moral status of embryos.

The article focuses on the benefits and disadvantages that genetic research participants and the families of genetic research participants could find from having the results of advanced genetic testing disclosed to them. In the article the authors offer their opinions on the moral and issues that are raised with the disclosure of genetic testing results and on several genetic testing programs.