Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29970926›Full record

ArticleGenetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics2019

Normative and conceptual ELSI research: what it is, and why it's important.

Lisa S Parker, Pamela L Sankar, Joy Boyer, J D Jean McEwen, David Kaufman

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Optimizing Ethics Engagement in Research: Learning from the Ethical Complexities of Studying Opioid Use in Pregnancy.The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics · 2022
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Lisa S ParkerCenter for Bioethics & Health Law, University of Pittsburgh, 519 Barco Law Building, 3900 Forbes Ave, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 15260, USA. lisap@pitt.edu.
Pamela L SankarMedical Ethics and Health Policy, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19104, USA.
Joy BoyerNHGRI ELSI Program Director, National Institutes of Health, Building 31, Room 4B09 31 Center Drive, MSC 2152, 9000, Bethesda, Maryland, 20892-2152, USA.
J D Jean McEwenNHGRI ELSI Program Director, National Institutes of Health, Building 31, Room 4B09 31 Center Drive, MSC 2152, 9000, Bethesda, Maryland, 20892-2152, USA.
David KaufmanNHGRI ELSI Program Director, National Institutes of Health, Building 31, Room 4B09 31 Center Drive, MSC 2152, 9000, Bethesda, Maryland, 20892-2152, USA.
National Institutes of Health · USInstitute of Medical Ethics · GBUniversity of Pittsburgh · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications (ELSI) Research Program of the National Human Genome Research Institute sponsors research examining ethical, legal, and social issues arising in the context of genetics/genomics. The ELSI Program endorses an understanding of research not as the sole province of empirical study, but instead as systematic study or inquiry, of which there are many types and methods. ELSI research employs both empirical and nonempirical methods. Because the latter remain relatively unfamiliar to biomedical and translational scientists, this paper seeks to elucidate the relationship between empirical and nonempirical methods in ELSI research. It pays particular attention to the research questions and methods of normative and conceptual research, which examine questions of value and meaning, respectively. To illustrate the distinct but interrelated roles of empirical and nonempirical methods in ELSI research, including normative and conceptual research, the paper demonstrates how a range of methods may be employed both to examine the evolution of the concept of incidental findings (including the recent step toward terming them 'secondary findings'), and to address the normative question of how genomic researchers and clinicians should manage incidental such findings.

Indexed as

Ethics, ResearchGenome, HumanGenomicsHumansNational Human Genome Research Institute (U.S.)Public PolicyUnited StatesELSI researchincidental findingsnormative issuesresearch methodsvalues and meaning

Identifiers

PMID29970926
OpenAlexW2810846000

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.