Moving toward Equity through Embedded ELSI Ethnography

IF 2.3 3区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS
Jennifer Elyse James, Leslie Riddle, Barbara Koenig, Galen Joseph
{"title":"Moving toward Equity through Embedded ELSI Ethnography","authors":"Jennifer Elyse James,&nbsp;Leslie Riddle,&nbsp;Barbara Koenig,&nbsp;Galen Joseph","doi":"10.1002/hast.4934","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This paper describes the unique values of, challenges within, and opportunities presented by embedded ELSI ethnography. Drawing from our six-year embedded ELSI study of the WISDOM (Women Informed to Screen Depending on Measures of Risk) trial, we present three examples of the variable ways we engaged with the WISDOM trial's scientific team. WISDOM is a preference-sensitive, pragmatic, randomized controlled trial of risk-based breast cancer screening informed by genomics. Our embedded ELSI approach included multiple modes of engagement: (a) Trial investigators sought bioethics expertise; for example, we were asked to consult on traditional bioethics topics such as consent as well as more complex questions about whether to implement a specific risk-assessment approach on only one race-defined group of trial participants. (b) As the ELSI investigators, we identified ethical concerns in issues that surfaced via ethnography and considered them in the Bioethics Working Group; for example, there were concerns about the implementation processes that the WISDOM team viewed as logistical challenges. (c) Our presence in WISDOM working group conversations and our expertise on classic social science topics, including race and gender, offered opportunities to engage on the spot with topics such as how to include transgender participants in a trial initially focused on “women's health”; through such engagement, the value of social science became clear to the trial investigators. The paper elaborates on the dynamic relationship between our ethnographic observations, the Bioethics Working Group discussions, and the contributions of each to our real-time ELSI interventions in these examples. The methods and experiences we describe here suggest modes of engagement that, in combination, have the potential to expand the role of ELSI to offer real-time intervention on issues related to equity, inclusion, and justice in genetic and genomic research.</p>","PeriodicalId":55073,"journal":{"name":"Hastings Center Report","volume":"54 S2","pages":"S93-S101"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/hast.4934","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hastings Center Report","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hast.4934","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper describes the unique values of, challenges within, and opportunities presented by embedded ELSI ethnography. Drawing from our six-year embedded ELSI study of the WISDOM (Women Informed to Screen Depending on Measures of Risk) trial, we present three examples of the variable ways we engaged with the WISDOM trial's scientific team. WISDOM is a preference-sensitive, pragmatic, randomized controlled trial of risk-based breast cancer screening informed by genomics. Our embedded ELSI approach included multiple modes of engagement: (a) Trial investigators sought bioethics expertise; for example, we were asked to consult on traditional bioethics topics such as consent as well as more complex questions about whether to implement a specific risk-assessment approach on only one race-defined group of trial participants. (b) As the ELSI investigators, we identified ethical concerns in issues that surfaced via ethnography and considered them in the Bioethics Working Group; for example, there were concerns about the implementation processes that the WISDOM team viewed as logistical challenges. (c) Our presence in WISDOM working group conversations and our expertise on classic social science topics, including race and gender, offered opportunities to engage on the spot with topics such as how to include transgender participants in a trial initially focused on “women's health”; through such engagement, the value of social science became clear to the trial investigators. The paper elaborates on the dynamic relationship between our ethnographic observations, the Bioethics Working Group discussions, and the contributions of each to our real-time ELSI interventions in these examples. The methods and experiences we describe here suggest modes of engagement that, in combination, have the potential to expand the role of ELSI to offer real-time intervention on issues related to equity, inclusion, and justice in genetic and genomic research.

通过嵌入式ELSI人种学走向公平
本文阐述了嵌入式 ELSI 民族志的独特价值、挑战和机遇。根据我们对 WISDOM(妇女根据风险措施知情筛查)试验进行的为期六年的嵌入式 ELSI 研究,我们列举了三个例子,说明我们与 WISDOM 试验科学团队接触的各种方式。WISDOM 是一项对偏好敏感、务实的随机对照试验,以基因组学为依据进行基于风险的乳腺癌筛查。我们的嵌入式 ELSI 方法包括多种参与模式:(a) 试验调查人员寻求生命伦理学方面的专业知识;例如,我们被要求就传统的生命伦理学主题(如同意)以及更复杂的问题(如是否只对一个种族定义的试验参与者群体实施特定的风险评估方法)提供咨询。(b) 作为 ELSI 的调查人员,我们发现了通过人种学研究浮现的伦理问题,并在生物伦 理工作组中进行了审议;例如,WISDOM 团队将实施过程中的一些问题视为 后勤方面的挑战。(c) 我们参与了 WISDOM 工作组的对话,我们在种族和性别等经典社会科学主题方面的专业知识为我们提供了现场参与讨论的机会,例如如何将变性参与者纳入最初以 "妇女健康 "为重点的试验中;通过这种参与,试验调查人员清楚地认识到了社会科学的价值。本文详细阐述了我们的人种学观察、生物伦理工作组的讨论之间的动态关系,以及在这些例子中各自对我们的实时 ELSI 干预做出的贡献。我们在此介绍的方法和经验提出了一些参与模式,这些模式结合在一起,有可能扩大 ELSI 的作用,对基因和基因组研究中与公平、包容和公正相关的问题进行实时干预。
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
Hastings Center Report
Hastings Center Report 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
3.00%
发文量
99
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Hastings Center Report explores ethical, legal, and social issues in medicine, health care, public health, and the life sciences. Six issues per year offer articles, essays, case studies of bioethical problems, columns on law and policy, caregivers’ stories, peer-reviewed scholarly articles, and book reviews. Authors come from an assortment of professions and academic disciplines and express a range of perspectives and political opinions. The Report’s readership includes physicians, nurses, scholars, administrators, social workers, health lawyers, and others.
×
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