Public involvement in the governance of population-level biomedical research

Unresolved questions and future directions

authored by
Sonja Erikainen, Phoebe Friesen, Leah Rand, Karin Jongsma, Michael Dunn, Annie Sorbie, Matthew McCoy, Jessica Bell, Michael Burgess, Haidan Chen, Vicky Chico, Sarah Cunningham-Burley, Julie Darbyshire, Rebecca Dawson, Andrew Evans, Nick Fahy, Teresa Finlay, Lucy Frith, Aaron Goldenberg, Lisa Hinton, Nils Hoppe, Nigel Hughes, Barbara Koenig, Sapfo Lignou, Michelle McGowan, Michael Parker, Barbara Prainsack, Mahsa Shabani, Ciara Staunton, Rachel Thompson, Kinga Varnai, Effy Vayena, Oli Williams, Max Williamson, Sarah Chan, Mark Sheehan
Abstract

Population-level biomedical research offers new opportunities to improve population health, but also raises new challenges to traditional systems of research governance and ethical oversight. Partly in response to these challenges, various models of public involvement in research are being introduced. Yet, the ways in which public involvement should meet governance challenges are not well understood. We conducted a qualitative study with 36 experts and stakeholders using the World Café method to identify key governance challenges and explore how public involvement can meet these challenges. This brief report discusses four cross-cutting themes from the study: the need to move beyond individual consent; issues in benefit and data sharing; the challenge of delineating and understanding publics; and the goal of clarifying justifications for public involvement. The report aims to provide a starting point for making sense of the relationship between public involvement and the governance of population-level biomedical research, showing connections, potential solutions and issues arising at their intersection. We suggest that, in population-level biomedical research, there is a pressing need for a shift away from conventional governance frameworks focused on the individual and towards a focus on collectives, as well as to foreground ethical issues around social justice and develop ways to address cultural diversity, value pluralism and competing stakeholder interests. There are many unresolved questions around how this shift could be realised, but these unresolved questions should form the basis for developing justificatory accounts and frameworks for suitable collective models of public involvement in population-level biomedical research governance.

Organisation(s)
Centre for Ethics and Law in the Life Sciences
External Organisation(s)
University of Edinburgh
McGill University
University Medical Center Utrecht (UMC)
University of Pennsylvania
University of British Columbia
Peking University
The University of Sheffield
Melanoma Patient Network Europe
Case Western Reserve University
University of Cambridge
Janssen Research and Development
TU Wien (TUW)
University of Cincinnati
Ghent University
Middlesex University
Swansea University
NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre
Universität Zürich (UZH)
Harvard University
Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH)
University of Oxford
University of Liverpool
Oxford Brookes University
Type
Short/Brief/Rapid Communication
Journal
Journal of medical ethics
Volume
47
Pages
522-525
No. of pages
4
ISSN
0306-6800
Publication date
24.06.2021
Publication status
Published
Peer reviewed
Yes
ASJC Scopus subject areas
Issues, ethics and legal aspects, Health(social science), Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous), Health Policy
Sustainable Development Goals
SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being
Electronic version(s)
https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2020-106530 (Access: Open)