Search

In this Commentary, we argue that in line with the dramatic increase in the collection, storage, and curation of human genomic data for biomedical research, genomic data repositories and consortia have adopted governance frameworks to address the dual objectives of enabling wide access while protecting against possible harms. However, there are ongoing debates in the scientific community about the merits and limitations of different governance frameworks in achieving these twin aims; and indeed, best practices and points for consideration are notably absent when it comes to devising a governance framework for genomic databases. Based on our collective experience of devising and assessing governance frameworks, our Commentary identifies five key functions of “good governance” (or what makes “better governance”) and three areas where trade-offs should be considered when specifying policies within those functions. We apply these functions as a benchmark to describe, as an example, the governance frameworks of six large-scale international genomic projects.

Current scientometric indexes do not encourage the linguistic diversity of sources cited in academic texts and researchers are not motivated to cite texts written in smaller languages. This diminishes the cultural diversity of the sources cited and limits the representation of small and indigenous cultures. This text proposes a scientometric measure designed to encourage the linguistic diversity of sources cited in articles, books, and papers. The Linguistic Diversity Index is based on two stipulations: (a) the more linguistically diverse the sources, the higher the score, and (b) the rarer the languages cited, the higher the score. If such a metric were used for the evaluation of social science and humanities journals, it would encourage the publication of papers that cite ideas from rarely represented cultural groups such as indigenous nations, ethnic groups from small countries, and other linguistic groups that have been omitted from mainstream scientific discourse. This might help to produce new research, which would help to improve the situation for these groups and create an epistemology that is more just to small cultural groups.

The practice of communicating research findings to participants has been identified as important in the research ethics literature, but little research has examined empirically how this occurs and what research participants' views are in this regard. We interviewed 21 adults with cystic fibrosis who had previously participated in research and 2 research coordinators at a cystic fibrosis clinic. We aimed to better understand research participants' views on receiving research results, types of findings they are interested in, how they would like to receive this information, and the impact this might have on future participation. Participants reported that they do not generally recall receiving study findings, though many reported that they would like to receive them. While some participants were not interested in receiving results, all participants felt that these results should be provided when desired by participants and believed that receiving study findings would support future participation. Participants felt that an accessible format, such as a lay summary, would be most helpful. This study supports calls to make study findings available to participants, though the format in which they are provided requires consideration. Participants rarely recalled receiving findings despite the clinic in which this study was conducted returning them regularly. Therefore, questions pertaining to the provision of study findings must focus less on whether to share the findings and more on how to share them with participants most effectively. The logistics of providing study findings may be challenging in some cases, but participant support for the practice highlights its importance.

This debate issue centers on the question of whether psychology should follow the methods and principles of the natural sciences. Answers to this question are often implicitly assumed but rarely explicitly debated among psychologists. This issue contains eight invited contributions by scholars whom we anticipated would have strong and divergent positions on the question. The articles present a broad range of perspectives, ranging from phenomenological psychology to cognitive neuroscience. They broadly line up with a "yes" or "no" answer to the question, four authors favoring a "yes" and four authors a "no" response, although nearly all authors advance more nuanced positions that challenge a simple classification. In this introduction, we first discuss the historical roots of the question and our motivation behind this specific formulation of it. Then we briefly summarize the contributions and place them in a broader context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Public deliberation is a form of dialogue that allows members of the public to provide input on a policy issue. Public deliberation processes invite participants to engage with each other respectfully, learn about the topic and each other's perspectives, and then work together toward solutions to an issue that are broadly acceptable. In this article, we develop a discursive psychological analysis of public deliberation on the topic of childhood vaccination. In particular, we focus on how descriptions of a parent who did not have her children vaccinated were developed iteratively by a small group of deliberants; how these descriptions came to be accepted as factual; and how these descriptions came to be used to support normative claims about childhood vaccination. Our main argument is that we can develop a deeper understanding of deliberation processes if we understand participants' statements to be rhetorically organised. This is achieved by examining how descriptions of events or people that are relevant to the final conclusions of the group are developed in the course of deliberation; how they come to be accepted as factual and accurate by the group; and how they then become instrumental in supporting a final consensus position. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]