Baron Sherry, Cuervo Isabel, Wilets Ilene, Cruz Josy, Gonzalez Ana, Flores Deysi, Harari Homero
Barry Commoner Center for Health and the Environment, Queens College, City University of New York, Queens, New York, USA.
Department of Environmental Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York, USA.
Environ Health Perspect. 2025 May;133(5):57019. doi: 10.1289/EHP15824. Epub 2025 May 23.
Community engagement in research, including community scientists' (CSs) participation in environmental exposure assessments, promotes the bidirectional flow of information between communities and researchers and improves the development of interventions to reduce environmental health inequities. Nonetheless, institutional review boards (IRBs) with limited experience with CS research tend to struggle when reviewing protocols given CS participants' dual role as research participants and co-creators of data.
We collected focus group data from 35 Latina housecleaners eliciting their bioethical reflections on their experience as CSs before and after participation in the collection of data about their exposures to chemical compounds in cleaning products. We shared findings from CS participants and collected impressions and challenges from IRB staff from five New York City biomedical research institutions. We used a modified approach to conventional content analysis to guide data analysis and combined deductive and inductive approaches to generate codes.
The CS participants emphasized their shared responsibility in the research process and bidirectional learning with the research team, which they saw as educating and empowering themselves and their broader community to create safer cleaning practices to improve the community's health and wellbeing. CS participants embraced the importance of sound science by their recognition that their community relied on the quality and accuracy of their work as CSs. Perspectives from IRB staff similarly recognized the value of participant engagement but emphasized the importance of disentangling CS activities as research participants from activities as research team members to better determine the appropriate mechanisms and authorities for assuring ethical protections.
Findings suggest that existing bioethical principles of beneficence, respect for persons, and justice, when interpreted by participants as inclusive of protections and benefits for both the CSs and their community's collective good, reflect the bioethical values of our CS participants. However, better guidance and training is needed for researchers, IRBs, and community collaborators to apply these values and respect and protect the full range of roles for community members participating in research. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP15824.
社区参与研究,包括社区科学家参与环境暴露评估,促进了社区与研究人员之间的信息双向流动,并改善了减少环境健康不平等的干预措施的制定。尽管如此,对社区科学家研究经验有限的机构审查委员会在审查方案时,往往会因社区科学家参与者作为研究参与者和数据共同创造者的双重角色而感到困难。
我们收集了35名拉丁裔家庭清洁工的焦点小组数据,了解他们在参与收集清洁产品中化学化合物暴露数据前后,作为社区科学家的生物伦理反思。我们分享了社区科学家参与者的研究结果,并收集了纽约市五家生物医学研究机构的机构审查委员会工作人员的看法和挑战。我们采用一种改进的传统内容分析方法来指导数据分析,并结合演绎和归纳方法生成编码。
社区科学家参与者强调了他们在研究过程中的共同责任以及与研究团队的双向学习,他们认为这是在教育和赋能自己以及更广泛的社区,以创造更安全的清洁做法,改善社区的健康和福祉。社区科学家参与者认识到他们的社区依赖于他们作为社区科学家工作的质量和准确性,从而认同了可靠科学的重要性。机构审查委员会工作人员的观点同样认识到参与者参与的价值,但强调了将社区科学家作为研究参与者的活动与作为研究团队成员的活动区分开来的重要性,以便更好地确定确保伦理保护的适当机制和权限。
研究结果表明,现有的有益、尊重个人和公正的生物伦理原则,当参与者将其解释为包括对社区科学家及其社区集体利益的保护和益处时,反映了我们社区科学家参与者的生物伦理价值观。然而,研究人员、机构审查委员会和社区合作者需要更好的指导和培训,以应用这些价值观,并尊重和保护参与研究的社区成员的全部角色。https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP15824