ArticleThe Hastings Center report2024
Accountability for Reasonableness as a Framework for the Promotion of Fair and Equitable Research.
Article in The Hastings Center report, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integrating Equity in Topic Selection for Orphan Medicinal Products: Policy Implications for Health Technology Assessment in Rare Diseases.Applied health economics and health policy · 2026Review
- Implicit ethical choices in ultra-rare therapy development: researchers' perspectives on patient selection and communication, therapy value, and accessibility.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Accountability for Reasonableness as a Framework for the Promotion of Fair and Equitable Research.The Hastings Center report · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite increased efforts to ensure diversity in genomic research, the exclusion of minority groups from data analyses and publications remains a critical issue. This paper addresses the ethical implications of these exclusions and proposes accountability for reasonableness (A4R) as a framework to promote fairness and equity in research. Originally conceived by Norman Daniels and James Sabin to guide resource allocation in the context of health policy, A4R emphasizes publicity, relevance of reasons, enforcement, and revision as essential for legitimacy and trust in the decision-making process. The authors argue that A4R is also relevant to resource allocation in research and that, if adequately informed and incentivized by funding agencies, institutional review boards, and scientific journals, researchers are well-positioned to assess data-selection justifications. The A4R framework provides a promising foundation for fostering accountability in genomics and other fields, including artificial intelligence, where lack of diversity and pervasive biases threaten equitable benefit sharing.
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.