ArticleEnvironmental health insights2026
Developing a Social Responsibility Pilot Tool to Reduce Helicopter Research and Improve Social Benefit: A Cleanup Site Case Study.
Article in Environmental health insights, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Environmental cleanup processes take place after contamination and possible human exposure to a range of pollutants. Researchers often contribute significantly in developing knowledge to assist remediation efforts; however, their work has sometimes been critiqued as "helicopter research" that does not benefit communities. This study aimed to develop a social responsibility tool that promotes the social impact of research conducted at cleanup sites. We used a qualitative case study approach to understand perspectives of stakeholders working at a contaminated site called Jones Road in Houston, Texas. Data collection included ongoing participant observation at community events and semi-structured stakeholder interviews, consisting of fifteen exploratory interviews followed by nine interviews to validate the tool. We analyzed interview data using both inductive and deductive approaches to design a preliminary social responsibility tool that was later refined and validated. Our tool is intended to help researchers map out stakeholder needs, develop goals that align with those needs, identify their responsibilities to effectively engage with and benefit stakeholders, and evaluate social benefits. Notably, we provide reflexive questions to assist researchers to enable advocacy, share expertise, develop knowledge, manage the harms of science, ensure safety, increase transparency, and ultimately build lasting relationships.
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.