Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37359139›Full record

ArticleBioSocieties2023

Navigating biosafety concerns within COVID-19 do-it-yourself (DIY) science: an ethnographic and interview study.

Anna Wexler, Rebekah Choi, Alex Pearlman, Lisa M Rasmussen

Full text read
In one paragraph

Article in BioSocieties, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

4 authors.

Anna WexlerDepartment of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, University of Pennsylvania, 423 Guardian Drive, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6723-9038
Rebekah ChoiDepartment of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, University of Pennsylvania, 423 Guardian Drive, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA.
Alex PearlmanDepartment of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, University of Pennsylvania, 423 Guardian Drive, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA.
Lisa M RasmussenDepartment of Philosophy, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Non-establishment or do-it-yourself (DIY) science involves individuals who may not have formal training conducting experiments outside of institutional settings. While prior scholarship has examined the motivations and values of those involved in the subset of DIY science known as "DIY biology," little research has addressed how these individuals navigate ethical issues in practice. The present study therefore aimed to understand how DIY biologists identify, approach, and resolve one particular ethical issue-biosafety-in their work. We conducted a digital ethnography of Just One Giant Lab (JOGL), the primary hub for DIY biology during the COVID-19 pandemic, and subsequently conducted interviews with individuals involved with JOGL. We found that JOGL was the first global DIY biology initiative to create a Biosafety Advisory Board and develop formal biosafety guidelines that applied to different groups in multiple locations. There was disagreement, however, regarding whether the Board should have an advisory role or provide mandatory oversight. We found that JOGL practiced ethical gatekeeping of projects that fell outside the limits defined by the Board. Our findings show that the DIY biology community recognized biosafety issues and tried to build infrastructure to facilitate the safe conduct of research. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1057/s41292-023-00301-2.

Indexed as

BioethicsBiomedical citizen scienceCOVID-19DIY biologyDIY science

Identifiers

PMID37359139
PMCPMC10042665

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read6
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.