Diversifying the Bioethics Funding Landscape: The Case of TMS.
Diversifying the Bioethics Funding Landscape: The Case of TMS.
复制标题
多样化的生物伦理资金景观：TMS的情况。
DOI：
10.1080/15265161.2021.2001106
复制
发表时间：
2022-01
影响因子：
13.4
通讯作者：
Appelbaum, L. Gregory
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Dubljevic, Veljko;Young, Jonathan R.;Appelbaum, L. Gregory
Fabi和Goldberg（2022）调查了资金的可用性如何影响生物伦理学作为一个领域的景观，并（无意中）在限制多样性的同时使社会和认识不公正的形式永久化。我们建议，有必要具体说明如何促进生物伦理学奖学金的多样性，特别是在审查和评级过程方面。我们的建议是，这些应该是一个类似于美国国立卫生研究院（NIH）的机制，以促进“早期职业”的研究人员和目前的机制，如强制性的“计划，以提高多样化的观点”，是不够的。此外，我们还想通过反思美国国立卫生研究院通过推进神经技术研究（BRAIN）计划支持的神经伦理学研究来支持Fabi和Goldberg的论点。也就是说，要求道德奖学金必须解决技术的前沿问题，这意味着仍在开发中且尚未获得批准的治疗技术（Voarino et al. 2017）将得到优先考虑。一个这样的例子是经颅直流电刺激（tDCS），这是由多个大脑神经伦理赠款，而另一种神经调节技术，经颅磁刺激（TMS），一种食品和药物管理局（FDA）批准的治疗方法，用于治疗数千人，但没有收到持续伦理分析的资金。最后，我们指定的机制（例如，重新制定的“创新”的分数），这将增加生物伦理学research.Fabi和戈德堡资助的主题和方法的多样性认为，有一个强大的道德理由改变分配资金流在生物伦理学，以支持更多样化的奖学金。然而，声明应该做些什么并不能为如何实现这一目标提供指导（Dubljevic 2019）。生物伦理学奖学金的慈善和行业资助在很大程度上是不受监管的（Fabbri et al. 2018），并允许在资助者的决策过程中“缺乏透明度和对个人网络和关系的非正式系统的依赖”（Pratt and Hyder 2017，457）。然而，大多数生物伦理学奖学金实际上是由美国政府资助的。Sharp及其同事（Sharp et al. 2008）对主要生物伦理学期刊上的资金披露进行了一项调查：45%的已发表文章报告了至少一个研究资金来源，而只有14%报告了两个或两个以上的资金来源，64%的资助者是美国政府机构。在政府生物伦理学资助的某些领域，最著名的是NIH BRAIN倡议神经伦理学资助机制（RFA-MH-21-205），要求在申请中包括一个“增强多样性观点计划”（PEDP）。这可能被视为政府对Fabi和Goldberg提出的担忧的回应。然而，尽管PEDP被吹捧为一种工具，提供了如何在整个生物伦理学研究项目期间设想和支持增强多样性观点的综合观点，但这份一页的文件并没有就如何在整体层面实现多样性提供指导。
Fabi and Goldberg (2022) investigate how funding availability influences the landscape of bioethics as a field, and (inadvertently) perpetuates forms of social and epistemic injustice while limiting diversity. We propose that it would be worthwhile to specify ways in which the diversity of bioethics scholarship can be promoted, specifically in terms of the review and rating process. Our suggestion is that these should be a system akin to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) mechanisms for promoting “early career” researchers and that current mechanisms, such as the mandatory inclusion of a “Plan for Enhancing Diverse Perspectives”, are not sufficient. Additionally, we would like to bolster Fabi and Goldberg’s argument by reflecting on the kinds of neuroethics research being supported by the NIH Brain Research Through Advancing Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative. Namely, the requirement that ethical scholarship has to address the cutting edge of technology means that technologies that are still in development and not yet approved treatments (Voarino et al. 2017) are being given priority. One such example is transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), which is explored by multiple BRAIN Neuroethics grants, while another neuromodulation technique, transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), a Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved therapeutic used to treat thousands of people has received no funds for sustained ethical analysis. We conclude by specifying the mechanisms (eg, reformulation of “innovation” scores) which would increase the diversity of topics and methodologies being funded in bioethics research.Fabi and Goldberg argue that there is a strong moral justification for changing the allocation of funding streams in bioethics to support more diverse scholarship. However, stating that something ought to be done does not provide guidance on how this may be accomplished (Dubljevic 2019). Philanthropic and industry funding of bioethics scholarship is largely unregulated (Fabbri et al. 2018) and permits a “lack of transparency and reliance on informal systems of personal networks and relationships” in funders’ decision-making processes (Pratt and Hyder 2017, 457). However, most funded bioethics scholarship is actually supported by the US government. Sharp and colleagues (Sharp et al. 2008) conducted a survey on the funding disclosures in major bioethics journals: 45% of published articles reported at least one source of research funding, while only 14% reported two or more funding sources, and 64% of funders were US government agencies. In certain areas of governmental bioethics funding, most notably the NIH BRAIN Initiative Neuroethics funding mechanism (RFA-MH-21-205), there is a requirement to include a “Plan for Enhancing Diverse Perspectives”(PEDP) as part of the application. This may be viewed as the government’s response to just the kinds of concerns that Fabi and Goldberg raise. However, even though the PEDP is touted as an instrument for providing an integrated view of how the enhancement of diverse perspectives is envisioned and supported throughout the duration of the bioethics research project, this one-page document does not provide guidance on how diversity should be achieved at a holistic level.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
2.9
作者：
Wexler, Anna
通讯作者：
Wexler, Anna
影响因子：
13.4
作者：
Fabi, Rachel;Goldberg, Daniel S.
通讯作者：
Goldberg, Daniel S.
影响因子：
1.4
作者：
Dubljevic, Veljko
通讯作者：
Dubljevic, Veljko
影响因子：
2.2
作者：
Racine, Eric;Dubljevic, Veljko;Muller, Sabine
通讯作者：
Muller, Sabine
影响因子：
2.9
作者：
Voarino N;Dubljević V;Racine E
通讯作者：
Racine E