以合理问责制作为促进公平与公平研究的框架

IF 2.3 3区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS
Charles Dupras, Marie-Pierre Dubé, Simon Gravel, Hazar Haidar
{"title":"以合理问责制作为促进公平与公平研究的框架","authors":"Charles Dupras,&nbsp;Marie-Pierre Dubé,&nbsp;Simon Gravel,&nbsp;Hazar Haidar","doi":"10.1002/hast.4931","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>Despite increased efforts to ensure diversity in genomic research, the exclusion of minority groups from data analyses and publications remains a critical issue. This paper addresses the ethical implications of these exclusions and proposes <i>accountability for reasonableness</i> (<i>A4R</i>) as a framework to promote fairness and equity in research. Originally conceived by Norman Daniels and James Sabin to guide resource allocation in the context of health policy, A4R emphasizes publicity, relevance of reasons, enforcement, and revision as essential for legitimacy and trust in the decision-making process. The authors argue that A4R is also relevant to resource allocation in research and that, if adequately informed and incentivized by funding agencies, institutional review boards, and scientific journals, researchers are well-positioned to assess data-selection justifications. The A4R framework provides a promising foundation for fostering accountability in genomics and other fields, including artificial intelligence, where lack of diversity and pervasive biases threaten equitable benefit sharing.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":55073,"journal":{"name":"Hastings Center Report","volume":"54 S2","pages":"S66-S72"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/hast.4931","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Accountability for Reasonableness as a Framework for the Promotion of Fair and Equitable Research\",\"authors\":\"Charles Dupras,&nbsp;Marie-Pierre Dubé,&nbsp;Simon Gravel,&nbsp;Hazar Haidar\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/hast.4931\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n <p>Despite increased efforts to ensure diversity in genomic research, the exclusion of minority groups from data analyses and publications remains a critical issue. This paper addresses the ethical implications of these exclusions and proposes <i>accountability for reasonableness</i> (<i>A4R</i>) as a framework to promote fairness and equity in research. Originally conceived by Norman Daniels and James Sabin to guide resource allocation in the context of health policy, A4R emphasizes publicity, relevance of reasons, enforcement, and revision as essential for legitimacy and trust in the decision-making process. The authors argue that A4R is also relevant to resource allocation in research and that, if adequately informed and incentivized by funding agencies, institutional review boards, and scientific journals, researchers are well-positioned to assess data-selection justifications. The A4R framework provides a promising foundation for fostering accountability in genomics and other fields, including artificial intelligence, where lack of diversity and pervasive biases threaten equitable benefit sharing.</p>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55073,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Hastings Center Report\",\"volume\":\"54 S2\",\"pages\":\"S66-S72\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/hast.4931\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Hastings Center Report\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hast.4931\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hastings Center Report","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hast.4931","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

摘要

尽管为确保基因组研究的多样性做出了越来越多的努力,但将少数群体排除在数据分析和出版物之外仍然是一个关键问题。本文探讨了这些排斥的伦理影响,并提出了合理性问责制(A4R)作为促进研究公平与公正的框架。A4R 最初由诺曼-丹尼尔斯和詹姆斯-萨宾提出,用于指导卫生政策方面的资源分配。A4R 强调公开性、理由的相关性、执行和修订是决策过程中合法性和信任的关键。作者认为,A4R 也适用于研究领域的资源分配,如果资助机构、机构审查委员会和科学杂志能够提供充分的信息和激励,研究人员完全有能力评估数据选择的合理性。A4R 框架为促进基因组学和包括人工智能在内的其他领域的问责制奠定了良好的基础,在这些领域,缺乏多样性和普遍存在的偏见威胁着公平的利益分享。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Accountability for Reasonableness as a Framework for the Promotion of Fair and Equitable Research

Despite increased efforts to ensure diversity in genomic research, the exclusion of minority groups from data analyses and publications remains a critical issue. This paper addresses the ethical implications of these exclusions and proposes accountability for reasonableness (A4R) as a framework to promote fairness and equity in research. Originally conceived by Norman Daniels and James Sabin to guide resource allocation in the context of health policy, A4R emphasizes publicity, relevance of reasons, enforcement, and revision as essential for legitimacy and trust in the decision-making process. The authors argue that A4R is also relevant to resource allocation in research and that, if adequately informed and incentivized by funding agencies, institutional review boards, and scientific journals, researchers are well-positioned to assess data-selection justifications. The A4R framework provides a promising foundation for fostering accountability in genomics and other fields, including artificial intelligence, where lack of diversity and pervasive biases threaten equitable benefit sharing.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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