Pursuit-worthy research in health: Three examples and a suggestion

IF 1.4 2区 哲学 Q1 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
Daniel A. Wilkenfeld
{"title":"Pursuit-worthy research in health: Three examples and a suggestion","authors":"Daniel A. Wilkenfeld","doi":"10.1016/j.shpsa.2024.08.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This paper, in a nutshell, is a plea for community participation in research along with an adapted idea for how such participation should be shaped and understood. I will give varied examples of the ways in which scientists viewing a perceived problem solely from an external perspective has led to mistakes. If we do not properly take into account the knowledge and values of people with a condition, we are liable to pursue the wrong sorts of treatments. In particular, I provide examples of three ways (exemplified in the cases of “female hysteria”, autism, and chronic fatigue syndrome) scientists are liable to pursue treatment of what they perceive to be at least partially mental illnesses that they/we shouldn't. I present the idea of <em>deliberative research</em>—the concept is based on that of deliberative democracy. The idea of deliberative democracy is that decisions should be made on the basis of reasons that would be acceptable to the target population. I similarly argue that research decisions should be made on the basis of reasons that would be acceptable to the target population, even if it requires other experts to determine how those reasons are best to be respected in the context of a particular project.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":49467,"journal":{"name":"Studies in History and Philosophy of Science","volume":"107 ","pages":"Pages 64-72"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0039368124001213/pdfft?md5=6326aa9d83efcc20bfce256869ee679d&pid=1-s2.0-S0039368124001213-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in History and Philosophy of Science","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0039368124001213","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper, in a nutshell, is a plea for community participation in research along with an adapted idea for how such participation should be shaped and understood. I will give varied examples of the ways in which scientists viewing a perceived problem solely from an external perspective has led to mistakes. If we do not properly take into account the knowledge and values of people with a condition, we are liable to pursue the wrong sorts of treatments. In particular, I provide examples of three ways (exemplified in the cases of “female hysteria”, autism, and chronic fatigue syndrome) scientists are liable to pursue treatment of what they perceive to be at least partially mental illnesses that they/we shouldn't. I present the idea of deliberative research—the concept is based on that of deliberative democracy. The idea of deliberative democracy is that decisions should be made on the basis of reasons that would be acceptable to the target population. I similarly argue that research decisions should be made on the basis of reasons that would be acceptable to the target population, even if it requires other experts to determine how those reasons are best to be respected in the context of a particular project.

有追求的健康研究:三个例子和一项建议
简而言之,本文是对社区参与研究的呼吁,同时也是对如何形成和理解这种参与的一种调整。我将举出各种例子,说明科学家如何仅从外部视角看待所发现的问题,从而导致错误的发生。如果我们不能正确地考虑患者的知识和价值观,我们就很可能会采取错误的治疗方法。具体而言,我将举例说明(以 "女性歇斯底里症"、自闭症和慢性疲劳综合症为例)科学家在治疗他们认为至少部分属于精神疾病的疾病时,有可能采取他们/我们不应该采取的治疗方法。我提出了 "审议研究 "的概念--这一概念的基础是 "审议民主"。协商民主的理念是,决策应基于目标人群可以接受的理由。我同样认为,研究决策应以目标人群可以接受的理由为基础,即使这需要其他专家来决定如何在特定项目中最好地尊重这些理由。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 管理科学-科学史与科学哲学
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
10.00%
发文量
166
审稿时长
6.6 weeks
期刊介绍: Studies in History and Philosophy of Science is devoted to the integrated study of the history, philosophy and sociology of the sciences. The editors encourage contributions both in the long-established areas of the history of the sciences and the philosophy of the sciences and in the topical areas of historiography of the sciences, the sciences in relation to gender, culture and society and the sciences in relation to arts. The Journal is international in scope and content and publishes papers from a wide range of countries and cultural traditions.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信