首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>European Journal of Human Genetics >A decision tool to guide the ethics review of a challenging breed of emerging genomic projects
【2h】

A decision tool to guide the ethics review of a challenging breed of emerging genomic projects

机译:一种决策工具可指导对具有挑战性的新兴基因组项目进行伦理审查

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

Recent projects conducted by the International Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC) have raised the important issue of distinguishing quality assurance (QA) activities from research in the context of genomics. Research was historically defined as a systematic effort to expand a shared body of knowledge, whereas QA was defined as an effort to ascertain whether a specific project met desired standards. However, the two categories increasingly overlap due to advances in bioinformatics and the shift toward open science. As few ethics review policies take these changes into account, it is often difficult to determine the appropriate level of review. Mislabeling can result in unnecessary burdens for the investigators or, conversely, in underestimation of the risks to participants. Therefore, it is important to develop a consistent method of selecting the review process for genomics and bioinformatics projects. This paper begins by discussing two case studies from the ICGC, followed by a literature review on the distinction between QA and research and a comparative analysis of ethics review policies from Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia. These results are synthesized into a novel two-step decision tool for researchers and policymakers, which uses traditional criteria to sort clearly defined activities while requiring the use of actual risk levels to decide more complex cases.
机译:由国际癌症基因组协会(ICGC)进行的近期项目提出了一个重要问题,即在基因组学背景下将质量保证(QA)活动与研究区分开来。历史上,研究被定义为系统性的努力,以扩展知识的共享体系,而质量保证的定义为,确定特定项目是否符合所需标准的努力。但是,由于生物信息学的进步和向开放科学的转变,这两个类别越来越重叠。由于很少有道德审查政策会考虑这些更改,因此通常很难确定适当的审查级别。标签错误可能会给研究人员带来不必要的负担,或者相反,会低估参与者的风险。因此,开发一种一致的方法来选择基因组学和生物信息学项目的评审过程非常重要。本文首先讨论了ICGC的两个案例研究,然后对质量保证与研究之间的区别进行了文献综述,并对加拿大,美国,英国和澳大利亚的伦理审查政策进行了比较分析。这些结果综合为研究人员和决策者使用的新颖的两步决策工具,该工具使用传统标准对明确定义的活动进行分类,同时要求使用实际风险水平来决定更复杂的案例。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号