Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31752834›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2019

Donors, authors, and owners: how is genomic citizen science addressing interests in research outputs?

Christi J Guerrini, Meaganne Lewellyn, Mary A Majumder, Meredith Trejo, Isabel Canfield, Amy L McGuire

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Open Science Practices in Psychiatric Genetics: A Primer.Biological psychiatry global open science · 2024
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

6 authors.

Christi J GuerriniBaylor College of Medicine, Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy, 1 Baylor Plaza, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. guerrini@bcm.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-4430-2740
Meaganne LewellynBaylor College of Medicine, Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy, 1 Baylor Plaza, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
Mary A MajumderBaylor College of Medicine, Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy, 1 Baylor Plaza, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
Meredith TrejoBaylor College of Medicine, Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy, 1 Baylor Plaza, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
Isabel CanfieldBaylor College of Medicine, Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy, 1 Baylor Plaza, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
Amy L McGuireBaylor College of Medicine, Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy, 1 Baylor Plaza, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.

Funding

Ownership Interests in Research Outputs of Genomic Citizen Science InitiativesK01HG009355 · NHGRI · BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE · PI GUERRINI, CHRISTI · 2016 to 2019
$664k
NHGRI NIH HHS K01 HG009355
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCitizen science is increasingly prevalent in the biomedical sciences, including the field of human genomics. Genomic citizen science initiatives present new opportunities to engage individuals in scientific discovery, but they also are provoking new questions regarding who owns the outputs of the research, including intangible ideas and discoveries and tangible writings, tools, technologies, and products. The legal and ethical claims of participants to research outputs become stronger-and also more likely to conflict with those of institution-based researchers and other stakeholders-as participants become more involved, quantitatively and qualitatively, in the research process. It is not yet known, however, how genomic citizen science initiatives are managing the interests of their participants in accessing and controlling research outputs in practice. To help fill this gap, we conducted an in-depth review of relevant policies and practices of U.S.-based genomic citizen science initiatives.

methodsWe queried the peer-reviewed literature and grey literature to identify 22 genomic citizen science initiatives that satisfied six inclusion criteria. A data collection form was used to capture initiative features, policies, and practices relevant to participants' access to and control over research outputs.

resultsThis analysis revealed that the genomic citizen science landscape is diverse and includes many initiatives that do not have institutional affiliations. Two trends that are in apparent tension were identified: commercialization and operationalization of a philosophy of openness. While most initiatives supported participants' access to research outputs, including datasets and published findings, none supported participants' control over results via intellectual property, licensing, or commercialization rights. However, several initiatives disclaimed their own rights to profit from outputs.

conclusionsThere are opportunities for citizen science initiatives to incorporate more features that support participants' access to and control over research outputs, consistent with their specific objectives, operations, and technical capabilities.

Indexed as

Citizen ScienceGenetic ResearchGenetic TestingGenomicsHumansIntellectual PropertyOwnershipPolicyCitizen scienceDirect-to-consumer genetic testingIntellectual propertyResearch ethicsReturn of results

Identifiers

PMID31752834
PMCPMC6868686

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.