Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26825296›Full record

SynthesisJournal of bioethical inquiry2016

What Do the Various Principles of Justice Mean Within the Concept of Benefit Sharing?

Bege Dauda, Yvonne Denier, Kris Dierickx

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of bioethical inquiry, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Bege DaudaCentre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, 35 Kapucijnenvoer, Box 7001, B-3000, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3820-1871
Yvonne DenierCentre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, 35 Kapucijnenvoer, Box 7001, B-3000, Leuven, Belgium. yvonne.denier@med.kuleuven.be.
Kris DierickxCentre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, 35 Kapucijnenvoer, Box 7001, B-3000, Leuven, Belgium. kris.dierickx@med.kuleuven.be.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The concept of benefit sharing pertains to the act of giving something in return to the participants, communities, and the country that have participated in global health research or bioprospecting activities. One of the key concerns of benefit sharing is the ethical justifications or reasons to support the practice of the concept in global health research and bioprospecting. This article evaluates one of such ethical justifications and its meaning to benefit sharing, namely justice. We conducted a systematic review to map the various principles of justice that are linked to benefit sharing and analysed their meaning to the concept of benefit sharing. Five principles of justice (commutative, distributive, global, procedural, and compensatory) have been shown to be relevant in the nuances of benefit sharing in both global health research and bioprospecting. The review findings indicate that each of these principles of justice provides a different perspective for a different benefit sharing rationale. For example, commutative justice provides a benefit sharing rationale that is focused on fair exchange of benefits between research sponsors and communities. Distributive justice produces a benefit sharing rationale that is focused on improving the health needs of the vulnerable research communities. We have suggested that a good benefit sharing framework particularly in global health research would be more beneficial if it combines all the principles of justice in its formulation. Nonetheless, there is a need for empirical studies to examine the various principles of justice and their nuances in benefit sharing among stakeholders in global health research.

Indexed as

Global HealthInternational CooperationBiomedical ResearchConcept FormationCooperative BehaviorEthics Committees, ResearchHealth PolicyHealth ResourcesHealth Services Needs and DemandHumansInformation DisseminationSocial JusticeBenefit sharingJusticePost-trial obligationsResearch ethicsResource-limited countries

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.