Philosopher, School of Humanities, University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, MS, USA.
Philosopher, Albert Gnaegi Center for Health Care Ethics, Saint Louis University, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Account Res. 2024 Nov;31(8):1062-1084. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2023.2201442. Epub 2023 Apr 14.
The COVID-19 pandemic forced Principal Investigators (PIs) to make rapid and unprecedented decisions about ongoing research projects and research teams. Confronted with vague or shifting guidance from institutional administrators and public health officials, PIs nonetheless had to decide whether their projects were "essential," who could conduct on-site "essential" research, how to continue research activities by remote means if possible, and how to safely and effectively manage personnel during the crisis. Based on both narrative comments from a federally sponsored survey of over a thousand NIH- and NSF-funded PIs and their personnel, as well as follow-up interviews with over 60 survey participants, this study examines various ways PI and institutional decisions raised issues of procedural and distributive fairness. These fairness issues include the challenge of treating research personnel fairly in light of their disparate personal circumstances and inconsistent enforcement of COVID-19-related directives. Our findings highlight aspects of fairness and equitability that all PIs and research administrators should keep in mind for when future research disruptions occur.
新冠疫情迫使主要研究者(PI)对正在进行的研究项目和研究团队做出快速且史无前例的决策。面对机构管理人员和公共卫生官员提供的模糊或不断变化的指导,PI 不得不决定他们的项目是否“必要”,谁可以进行现场“必要”的研究,如何在可能的情况下通过远程方式继续研究活动,以及如何在危机期间安全有效地管理人员。本研究基于一项联邦资助的针对千余名 NIH 和 NSF 资助的 PI 及其人员的调查的叙述性评论,以及对 60 多名调查参与者的后续访谈,研究考察了 PI 和机构决策引发程序公平和分配公平问题的各种方式。这些公平问题包括根据研究人员不同的个人情况和对新冠疫情相关指令执行不一致的情况,公平对待研究人员的挑战。我们的研究结果强调了所有 PI 和研究管理人员在未来研究受到干扰时都应牢记的公平和公平性方面。