Beyond inclusion: Enacting team equity in precision medicine research.

PURPOSE: To identify meanings of and challenges to enacting equitable diversification of genomics research, and specifically precision medicine research (PMR), teams. METHODS: We conducted in-depth interviews with 102 individuals involved in three U.S.-based precision medicine research consortia and conducted over 400 observation hours of their working group meetings, consortium-wide meetings, and conference presentations. We also reviewed published reports on genomic workforce diversity (WFD), particularly those relevant to the PMR community. RESULTS: Our study finds that many PMR teams encounter challenges as they strive to achieve equitable diversification on scientific teams. Interviewees articulated that underrepresented team members were often hired to increase the study's capacity to recruit diverse research participants, but are limited to on-the-ground staff positions with little influence over study design. We find existing hierarchies and power structures in the academic research ecosystem compound challenges for equitable diversification. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that meaningful diversification of PMR teams will only be possible when team equity is prioritized as a core value in academic research communities.

Scientists' political behaviors are not driven by individual-level government benefits.

Is it appropriate for scientists to engage in political advocacy? Some political critics of scientists argue that scientists have become partisan political actors with self-serving financial agendas. However, most scientists strongly reject this view. While social scientists have explored the effects of science politicization on public trust in science, little empirical work directly examines the drivers of scientists' interest in and willingness to engage in political advocacy. Using a natural experiment involving the U.S. National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship (NSF-GRF), we causally estimate for the first time whether scientists who have received federal science funding are more likely to engage in both science-related and non-science-related political behaviors. Comparing otherwise similar individuals who received or did not receive NSF support, we find that scientists' preferences for political advocacy are not shaped by receiving government benefits. Government funding did not impact scientists' support of the 2017 March for Science nor did it shape the likelihood that scientists donated to either Republican or Democratic political groups. Our results offer empirical evidence that scientists' political behaviors are not motivated by self-serving financial agendas. They also highlight the limited capacity of even generous government support programs to increase civic participation by their beneficiaries.

A Scientist's Oath.

Data on the perceptions of scientists suggest a moderate public distrust of scientist's motivations. Bettridge et al. suggest scientist's reluctance to engage the public on controversial ethical issues may be a contributing factor. The authors propose a Scientist's Oath to send a clear message to the public about our ideals.

Should We All be Scientists? Re-thinking Laboratory Research as a Calling.

In recent years there have been major shifts in how the role of science-and scientists-are understood. The critical examination of scientific expertise within the field of Science and Technology Studies (STS) are increasingly eroding notions of the "otherness" of scientists. It would seem to suggest that anyone can be a scientist-when provided with the appropriate training and access to data. In contrast, however, ethnographic evidence from the scientific community tells a different story. Scientists are quick to recognize that not everyone can-or should-be a scientist. Appealing to notions such as "good hands" or "gut feelings", scientists narrate a distinction between good and bad scientists that cannot be reduced to education, access, or opportunity. The key to good science requires scientists to express an intuitive feeling for their discipline, but also that individuals derive considerable personal satisfaction from their work. Discussing this personal joy in-and "fittingness" of-scientific occupations using the fields of STS, ethics and science policy is highly problematic. In this paper we turn to theology discourse to analyze the notion of "callings" as a means of understanding this issue. Callings highlight the identification and examination of individual talents to determine fit occupations for specific persons. Framing science as a calling represents a novel view of research that places the talents and dispositions of individuals and their relationship to the community at the center of flourishing practices.

The credibility crisis in research: Can economics tools help?

The issue of nonreplicable evidence has attracted considerable attention across biomedical and other sciences. This concern is accompanied by an increasing interest in reforming research incentives and practices. How to optimally perform these reforms is a scientific problem in itself, and economics has several scientific methods that can help evaluate research reforms. Here, we review these methods and show their potential. Prominent among them are mathematical modeling and laboratory experiments that constitute affordable ways to approximate the effects of policies with wide-ranging implications.

Caracterização de biotérios, legislação e padrões de biossegurança / Animal housing: characterization, legislation and biosafety standards

O emprego de animais de laboratório em conjunto com estudos realizados em humanos fornece uma base para a compreensão de vários processos fisiológicos e patológicos importantes. Além disso, os resultados de estudos experimentais possibilitam uma melhor compreensão e segurança para o desenvolvimento de técnicas cirúrgicas na clínica médica. Por se tratar de material biológico vivo, devemos garantir sua integridade física levando-se em consideração as contaminações microbiológicas, a genética, a nutrição ea correta manipulação, a fim de se evitar que ocorram conclusões inválidas nos experimentos ou que se aumente desnecessariamente o número de animais utilizados. Em paralelo às preocupações e legislações sobre o uso de animais de laboratório, desenvolveu-se também a preocupação com o bem estar e a segurança das pessoas que manuseiam os animais de laboratório, uma vez que estas correm riscos de adquirirem doenças ocupacionais pela presença de contaminações zoonóticas ou por desenvolvimento de alergias. A prevenção requer a aplicação de modernos avanços tecnológicos no desenho do biotério e nas rotinas de trabalho. Infelizmente poucos estabelecimentos do país apresentam recursos humanos com formação apropriada e infra-estrutura básica de pesquisa que inclua os centros de criação de animais de laboratório, equivalentes àqueles existentes nos Estados Unidos e Europa.