ArticleThe Hastings Center report2023
Wrestling with Public Input on an Ethical Analysis of Scientific Research.
Article in The Hastings Center report, 2023. 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.
- Behavioral Genetics as a Public Science: Introduction to the Special Issue.Behavior genetics · 2026Article
- The Preprint Problem: Fringe, Genetically Informed Studies of Group Differences in Behavior Housed on Open Science Platforms.Behavior genetics · 2026Article
- Social and Behavioral Genomics: On the Ethics of the Research and Its Downstream Applications.Annual review of genomics and human genetics · 2025Review
- Placing Publics in Public Health Genomics.Public health genomics · 2024Article
- Rethinking the "Public" and Rethinking "Engagement".The American journal of bioethics : AJOB · 2023Article
- Wrestling with Social and Behavioral Genomics: Risks, Potential Benefits, and Ethical Responsibility.The Hastings Center report · 2023Article
- Scanning the Horizon of Sociogenomics: an Assessment of the Development and Growth of Polygenic Indices for Social and Behavioral Traits.AJOB empirical bioethicsReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Bioethicists frequently call for empirical researchers to engage participants and community members in their research, but don't themselves typically engage community members in their normative research. In this article, we describe an effort to include members of the public in normative discussions about the risks, potential benefits, and ethical responsibilities of social and behavioral genomics (SBG) research. We reflect on what might-and might not- be gained from engaging the public in normative scholarship and on lessons learned about public perspectives on the risks and potential benefits of SBG research and the responsible conduct and communication of such research. We also provide procedural lessons for others in bioethics who are interested in engaging members of the public in their research.
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.