Funding and Forums for ELSI Research: Who (or What) is Setting the Agenda?

AJOB primary research Pub Date : 2012-01-01 Epub Date: 2012-06-19 DOI:10.1080/21507716.2012.678550
Clair Morrissey, Rebecca L Walker
{"title":"Funding and Forums for ELSI Research: Who (or What) is Setting the Agenda?","authors":"Clair Morrissey, Rebecca L Walker","doi":"10.1080/21507716.2012.678550","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>BACKGROUND: Discussion of the influence of money on bioethics research seems particularly salient in the context of research on the ethical, legal and social implications (ELSI) of human genomics, as this research may be financially supported by the ELSI Research Program. Empirical evidence regarding the funding of ELSI research and where such research is disseminated, in relation to the specific topics of the research and methods used, can help to further discussions regarding the appropriate influence of specific institutions and institutional contexts on ELSI and other bioethics research agendas. METHODS: We reviewed 642 ELSI publications (appearing between 2003-2008) for reported sources of funding, forum for dissemination, empirical and non-empirical methods, and topic of investigation. RESULTS: Most ELSI research is independent of direct grant-based funding sources; 66% reported no such sources of funding. The National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) is the most dominant source of funding; 16% of publications acknowledged at least one source of NHGRI grant funding. Funding is acknowledged more frequently in empirical than non-empirical publications, and more frequently in publications in public health journals than in any other ELSI research dissemination forums. Dominant research topics vary by publication forum and by reported funding. CONCLUSIONS: ELSI research is surprisingly independent of direct grant-based funding, yet correlations are apparent between this type of funding and publication placement, topics addressed, and methods used, implying a not insignificant influence on ELSI research agenda-setting. However, given the relatively low percentage of publications acknowledging external grant-based funding, as well as other significant correlations between publication placement and topics addressed, additional institutional contexts, perhaps related to professional advancement or valuation, may shape research agendas in ways that potentially exceed the direct influences of grant-based funding in this area. In some cases, grant-based funding may actually counter other potentially problematic institutional influences.</p>","PeriodicalId":89316,"journal":{"name":"AJOB primary research","volume":"3 3","pages":"51-60"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3413296/pdf/nihms387328.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AJOB primary research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21507716.2012.678550","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2012/6/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Discussion of the influence of money on bioethics research seems particularly salient in the context of research on the ethical, legal and social implications (ELSI) of human genomics, as this research may be financially supported by the ELSI Research Program. Empirical evidence regarding the funding of ELSI research and where such research is disseminated, in relation to the specific topics of the research and methods used, can help to further discussions regarding the appropriate influence of specific institutions and institutional contexts on ELSI and other bioethics research agendas. METHODS: We reviewed 642 ELSI publications (appearing between 2003-2008) for reported sources of funding, forum for dissemination, empirical and non-empirical methods, and topic of investigation. RESULTS: Most ELSI research is independent of direct grant-based funding sources; 66% reported no such sources of funding. The National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) is the most dominant source of funding; 16% of publications acknowledged at least one source of NHGRI grant funding. Funding is acknowledged more frequently in empirical than non-empirical publications, and more frequently in publications in public health journals than in any other ELSI research dissemination forums. Dominant research topics vary by publication forum and by reported funding. CONCLUSIONS: ELSI research is surprisingly independent of direct grant-based funding, yet correlations are apparent between this type of funding and publication placement, topics addressed, and methods used, implying a not insignificant influence on ELSI research agenda-setting. However, given the relatively low percentage of publications acknowledging external grant-based funding, as well as other significant correlations between publication placement and topics addressed, additional institutional contexts, perhaps related to professional advancement or valuation, may shape research agendas in ways that potentially exceed the direct influences of grant-based funding in this area. In some cases, grant-based funding may actually counter other potentially problematic institutional influences.

ELSI 研究的资金和论坛:谁(或什么)在制定议程?
背景:在有关人类基因组学的伦理、法律和社会影响(ELSI)的研究中,讨论资金对生物伦理学研究的影响似乎尤为重要,因为这项研究可能会得到 ELSI 研究计划的资助。有关 ELSI 研究的资金来源以及此类研究在何处传播的经验证据,与研究的具体主题和使用的方法有关,有助于进一步讨论特定机构和机构环境对 ELSI 和其他生物伦理研究议程的适当影响。 方法:我们审查了 642 篇 ELSI 出版物(出现于 2003-2008 年间),以了解报告的资金来源、传播论坛、实证和非实证方法以及调查主题。 结果:大多数 ELSI 研究都不依赖于直接拨款;66% 的研究报告称没有此类资金来源。美国国家人类基因组研究所(NHGRI)是最主要的资金来源;16%的出版物承认至少有一个NHGRI赠款资金来源。实证性出版物比非实证性出版物更经常提到资金来源,公共卫生期刊上的出版物比 ELSI 的其他研究传播论坛上的出版物更经常提到资金来源。主要研究课题因发表论坛和报告的资助情况而异。 结论:令人吃惊的是,ELSI 研究与直接拨款无关,但这种类型的拨款与发表位置、涉及的主题和使用的方法之间存在明显的相关性,这意味着它对 ELSI 研究议程的制定有不小的影响。然而,鉴于承认外部资助的出版物所占比例相对较低,以及出版物的发表位置与论述主题之间的其他重要相关性,其他机构背景(可能与专业提升或价值评估有关)可能会以潜在的方式影响研究议程,而这种影响可能会超过该领域的直接资助影响。在某些情况下,基于基金的资助实际上可能会抵消其他可能存在问题的机构影响。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信