Suppr超能文献

[研究与非研究。流行病学方案评估中的价值观]

[Research and non-research. The values in the evaluation of epidemiological protocols].

作者信息

Lechopier N

机构信息

Institut d'histoire et de philosophie des sciences et des techniques, 13, rue du Four, 75006 Paris, France.

出版信息

Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique. 2010 Feb;58(1):41-8. doi: 10.1016/j.respe.2009.09.006. Epub 2010 Jan 29.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Evaluation and ethical review of epidemiological research projects raises the problem of the limits between research and non-research. This ambiguous boundary reflects the status of this discipline at the crossroads between research and practical action. The question then is: in the field of health research, what gives data collection and analysis its quality of scientific activity?

METHODS

A conceptual and empirical study has been conducted about the practices of epidemiological research evaluation, centred on the case of the French Consultative Committee for the data processing in health research (CCTIRS), which is a consultative board that permits the National commission for the personal data protection (CNIL) to take decision about health research protocols that process personal data. The study was realized from 2003 to 2006.

RESULTS

It is shown that the evaluation of such research protocols processing personal data articulates intimately two kinds of criteria: methodology and relevance. By studying and characterizing the different kinds of protocols that are judged not to be "scientific research" (poor science, pseudo-science and non-science), it becomes possible to understand the motives that lead to distinguish between what is and what is not research in epidemiology. A special attention is given to two kinds of problematic cases: firstly, the case of conflict of interests into the protocols themselves (i.e. seeding trials or surveys); secondly, the problem of epidemiological registers and other databases which are not hypothesis-oriented. This last case leads to relate the conceptual frame of the committee with historical circumstances (the way which this discipline was introduced in France) and also mere epistemological considerations (the question of induction and generalizability).

CONCLUSION

The activity of this committee illustrates a differentiated conception of what is research in epidemiology, influenced by explanatory analytical research paradigms. Finally, the field of epidemiological research appears to be structured by some values that appear through the elaboration and the application of the ethical and regulatory texts.

摘要

背景

流行病学研究项目的评估与伦理审查引发了研究与非研究界限的问题。这种模糊的界限反映了该学科在研究与实际行动交叉点上的地位。那么问题是:在健康研究领域,是什么赋予数据收集和分析科学活动的性质?

方法

围绕法国健康研究数据处理咨询委员会(CCTIRS)的案例,开展了一项关于流行病学研究评估实践的概念性和实证性研究。该委员会是一个咨询委员会,可让国家个人数据保护委员会(CNIL)就处理个人数据的健康研究方案做出决策。该研究于2003年至2006年开展。

结果

研究表明,对这类处理个人数据的研究方案进行评估时,紧密结合了两种标准:方法学和相关性。通过研究和描述被判定为“非科学研究”(劣质科学、伪科学和非科学)的不同类型方案的特征,就有可能理解在流行病学中区分研究与非研究的动机。特别关注了两类有问题的案例:第一,方案本身存在利益冲突的情况(即预试验或调查);第二,非以假设为导向的数据登记和其他数据库的问题。后一种情况导致将委员会的概念框架与历史环境(该学科在法国引入的方式)以及纯粹的认识论考虑(归纳和可推广性问题)联系起来。

结论

该委员会的活动体现了一种受解释性分析研究范式影响的、关于流行病学中何为研究的差异化概念。最后,流行病学研究领域似乎由一些价值观构建而成,这些价值观通过伦理和监管文本的制定与应用得以体现。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验