Woolley J Patrick, McGowan Michelle L, Teare Harriet J A, Coathup Victoria, Fishman Jennifer R, Settersten Richard A, Sterckx Sigrid, Kaye Jane, Juengst Eric T
University of Oxford, Harris Manchester College, Mansfield Road, Oxford, OX1 3TD, UK.
The Pennsylvania State University, 128B Willard Building, University Park, PA, 16802, USA.
BMC Med Ethics. 2016 Jun 4;17(1):33. doi: 10.1186/s12910-016-0117-1.
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.
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. 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.
“参与者驱动的研究”“众包”和“公民科学”等术语越来越多地被用于鼓励公众作为受试者和科学家参与研究项目。最初,这些标签是由传统研究机构之外的业余爱好者推动的志愿研究工作所使用的,旨在吸引那些寻求比专业科学机构更“民主”“以患者为中心”或“外行”的替代方案的人。然而,随着主流转化生物医学研究需要越来越大的参与者群体,企业、学术和政府研究项目正在接受这种民粹主义言辞,以鼓励更广泛的公众参与。
我们审视了这种招募策略的伦理和社会影响。我们首先调查生物医学之外的“公民科学”实例,作为这种民主化言辞最初旨在体现的愿望的范例。接下来,我们讨论这些愿望在生物医学背景下是如何表达的,以期在公民也是科学研究对象时,梳理出“公众参与”的多重且可能相互冲突的含义。然后,我们举例说明公众参与言辞在争取公众对国家生物医学研究工作支持方面的两种用途:它在英国国民医疗服务体系的“医疗数据”项目中的事后使用,以及在美国白宫“精准医疗计划”中的主动使用。这些例子将作为规范分析的基础,讨论这种言辞可能产生的伦理和社会影响。我们特别关注政府策略的影响,这些策略强化了公众有公民义务参与政府资助的研究倡议这一观念。我们认为,此类倡议应借鉴支持对公民角色进行规范分析的政策框架。并且,我们得出结论,必须明确揭示“公民科学”的全部含义、其使用的背景以及对参与、介入和治理的要求。