14
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Public trust and ‘ethics review’ as a commodity: the case of Genomics England Limited and the UK’s 100,000 genomes project

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The UK Chief Medical Officer’s 2016 Annual Report, Generation Genome, focused on a vision to fully integrate genomics into all aspects of the UK’s National Health Service (NHS). This process of integration, which has now already begun, raises a wide range of social and ethical concerns, many of which were discussed in the final Chapter of the report. This paper explores how the UK’s 100,000 Genomes Project (100 kGP)—the catalyst for Generation Genome, and for bringing genomics into the NHS—is negotiating these ethical concerns. The UK’s 100 kGP, promoted and delivered by Genomics England Limited (GEL), is an innovative venture aiming to sequence 100,000 genomes from NHS patients who have a rare disease, cancer, or an infectious disease. GEL has emphasised the importance of ethical governance and decision-making. However, some sociological critique argues that biomedical/technological organisations presenting themselves as ‘ethical’ entities do not necessarily reflect a space within which moral thinking occurs. Rather, the ‘ethical work’ conducted (and displayed) by organisations is more strategic, relating to the politics of the organisation and the need to build public confidence. We set out to explore whether GEL’s ethical framework was reflective of this critique, and what this tells us more broadly about how genomics is being integrated into the NHS in response to the ethical and social concerns raised in Generation Genome. We do this by drawing on a series of 20 interviews with individuals associated with or working at GEL.

          Related collections

          Most cited references26

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Book: not found

          Designs on Nature

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            The Politics of Talk: Coming to Terms with the 'New' Scientific Governance

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Citizen science or scientific citizenship? Disentangling the uses of public engagement rhetoric in national research initiatives

              Background The language of “participant-driven research,” “crowdsourcing” and “citizen science” is increasingly being used to encourage the public to become involved in research ventures as both subjects and scientists. Originally, these labels were invoked by volunteer research efforts propelled by amateurs outside of traditional research institutions and aimed at appealing to those looking for more “democratic,” “patient-centric,” or “lay” alternatives to the professional science establishment. As mainstream translational biomedical research requires increasingly larger participant pools, however, corporate, academic and governmental research programs are embracing this populist rhetoric to encourage wider public participation. Discussion We examine the ethical and social implications of this recruitment strategy. We begin by surveying examples of “citizen science” outside of biomedicine, as paradigmatic of the aspirations this democratizing rhetoric was originally meant to embody. Next, we discuss the ways these aspirations become articulated in the biomedical context, with a view to drawing out the multiple and potentially conflicting meanings of “public engagement” when citizens are also the subjects of the science. We then illustrate two uses of public engagement rhetoric to gain public support for national biomedical research efforts: its post-hoc use in the “care.data” project of the National Health Service in England, and its proactive uses in the “Precision Medicine Initiative” of the United States White House. These examples will serve as the basis for a normative analysis, discussing the potential ethical and social ramifications of this rhetoric. Summary We pay particular attention to the implications of government strategies that cultivate the idea that members of the public have a civic duty to participate in government-sponsored research initiatives. We argue that such initiatives should draw from policy frameworks that support normative analysis of the role of citizenry. And, we conclude it is imperative to make visible and clear the full spectrum of meanings of “citizen science,” the contexts in which it is used, and its demands with respect to participation, engagement, and governance.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                07775 445 380 , gabbysamuel@gmail.com
                b.farsides@bsms.ac.uk
                Journal
                Med Health Care Philos
                Med Health Care Philos
                Medicine, Health Care, and Philosophy
                Springer Netherlands (Dordrecht )
                1386-7423
                1572-8633
                30 October 2017
                30 October 2017
                2018
                : 21
                : 2
                : 159-168
                Affiliations
                ISNI 0000 0004 1936 7590, GRID grid.12082.39, Brighton and Sussex Medical School, , University of Sussex, ; Falmer, BN1 9PX UK
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8111-2730
                Article
                9810
                10.1007/s11019-017-9810-1
                5884416
                29086191
                e9aaf10f-6ac9-400e-aea3-9227f5844ece
                © The Author(s) 2017

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

                History
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100004440, Wellcome Trust;
                Award ID: 086034
                Award Recipient :
                Categories
                Scientific Contribution
                Custom metadata
                © Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

                Medicine
                ethics,ethics committees,health policy,governance,genomics,genetics
                Medicine
                ethics, ethics committees, health policy, governance, genomics, genetics

                Comments

                Comment on this article