ArticleGlobal bioethics = Problemi di bioetica2022
Epistemic justice, African values and feedback of findings in African genomics research.
Article in Global bioethics = Problemi di bioetica, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- From equity to solidarity: how care and relationality transform the debate on justice in genomics.Journal of community genetics · 2026Article
- Rare disease genomics and justice: overview of a workshop at the Fondation Brocher, 22-24 January 2025.Journal of community genetics · 2026Article
- Return of health research findings in Nigeria-perspective of potential research participants.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Navigating the human gene editing scene and proposing a new governance framework in Africa: from knowledge to policy to action.Frontiers in genome editing · 2026Article
- Return of health research findings in Nigeria-perspective of potential research participants.Research square · 2025Article
- Research participants and stakeholders' views on feedback of genetic research findings: a qualitative study of the H3Africa Kidney Disease Research Network in Ghana.BMC nephrology · 2025Article
- Decolonial health literature can increase our thinking about ethics dumping.Journal of medical ethics and history of medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This article draws on key normative principles grounded in important values - solidarity, partiality and friendliness - in African philosophy to think critically and deeply about the ethical challenges around returning individual genetic research findings in African genomics research. Precisely, we propose that the normative implication of solidarity, partiality and friendliness is that returning findings should be considered as a gesture of goodwill to participants to the extent that it constitutes acting for their well-being. Concretely, the value of friendliness may imply that one ought to return actionable results to participants even when their preferences regarding feedback are unknown. Notwithstanding, returning individual genetic results will have a cost implication. The cost of feeding back is relevant in the context of African genomics research projects, which are often funded by international sponsors and should be researched further.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.