Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15362702›Full record

ArticleScience and engineering ethics2004

Strategies for consulting with the community: the cases of four large-scale genetic databases.

B Godard, J Marshall, C Laberge, B M Knoppers

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Constructing populations in biobanking.Life sciences, society and policy · 2015
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Community engagement about genetic variation research.Population health management · 2012
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Biobank Recruitment: Motivations for Nonparticipation.Biopreservation and biobanking · 2009
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Defining the spectrum of genome policy.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2006
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

B GodardUniversity of Montreal, Faculty of Medicine, Bioethics Programs, QC, Canada. Beatrice.godard@umontreal.ca
J Marshall
C Laberge
B M Knoppers

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Large-scale genetic databases are being developed in several countries around the world. However, these databases depend on public participation and acquiescence. In the past, information campaigns have been waged and little attention has been paid to dialogue. Nowadays, it is important to include the public in the development of scientific research and to encourage a free, open and useful dialogue among those involved. This paper is a review of community consultation strategies as part of four proposed large-scale genetic databases in Iceland, Estonia, United Kingdom and Quebec. The Iceland Health Sector Database and Estonian Genome Project have followed a "communication approach" in order to address public concerns, whereas, UK Biobank and Quebec CARTaGENE have chosen a "partnership approach" to involve the public in decision-making processes. Following a comparison of community consultation strategies, the main concerns of the public are examined as well as the challenges of involving communities. Importantly, reported across all groups is the concern for confidentiality, respect of the individual, transparency, and the donor's right to access to their own result. However, even if researchers demonstrate a willingness to respect values such as fair representation, transparency and accountability, there is still a risk that the public will mistrust researchers and simply will not participate in sufficient numbers. Complications may arise when individual and community interests conflicts. The implementation of a partnership approach is definitely involving and costly; however, if used properly, this method can improve both participation and so database development.

Indexed as

Community-Institutional RelationsCommunity ParticipationDatabases, GeneticEstoniaHumansIcelandQuebecUnited KingdomBiomedical and Behavioral ResearchGenetics and Reproduction

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.