Increasing equity in science requires better ethics training: A course by trainees, for trainees.

Despite the profound impacts of scientific research, few scientists have received the necessary training to productively discuss the ethical and societal implications of their work. To address this critical gap, we-a group of predominantly human genetics trainees-developed a course on genetics, ethics, and society. We intend for this course to serve as a template for other institutions and scientific disciplines. Our curriculum positions human genetics within its historical and societal context and encourages students to evaluate how societal norms and structures impact the conduct of scientific research. We demonstrate the utility of this course via surveys of enrolled students and provide resources and strategies for others hoping to teach a similar course. We conclude by arguing that if we are to work toward rectifying the inequities and injustices produced by our field, we must first learn to view our own research as impacting and being impacted by society.

Barriers to diverse clinical trial participation in Duchenne muscular dystrophy: Engaging Hispanic/Latina caregivers and health professionals.

BACKGROUND: Despite the increasing availability of clinical trials in Duchenne muscular dystrophy, racial/ethnic minorities and other populations facing health disparities remain underrepresented in clinical trials evaluating products for Duchenne. We sought to understand the barriers faced by Hispanic/Latino families specifically and underrepresented groups more generally to clinical trial participation in Duchenne. METHODS: We engaged two participant groups: Hispanic/Latino caregivers of children with Duchenne in the US, including Puerto Rico, and health professionals within the broader US Duchenne community. Caregiver interviews explored attitudes towards and experiences with clinical trials, while professional interviews explored barriers to clinical trial participation among socio-demographically underrepresented families (e.g., low income, rural, racial/ethnic minority, etc.). Interviews were analyzed aggregately and using a thematic analysis approach. An advisory group was engaged throughout the course of the study to inform design, conduct, and interpretation of findings generated from interviews. RESULTS: Thirty interviews were conducted, including with 12 Hispanic/Latina caregivers and 18 professionals. We identified barriers to clinical trial participation at various stages of the enrollment process. In the initial identification of patients, barriers included lack of awareness about trials and clinical trial locations at clinics that were less likely to serve diverse patients. In the prescreening process, barriers included ineligibility, anticipated non-compliance in clinical trial protocols, and language discrimination. In screening, barriers included concerns about characteristics of the trial, as well as mistrust/lack of trust. In consent and recruitment, barriers included lack of timely decision support, logistical factors (distance, time, money), and lack of translated study materials. CONCLUSIONS: Numerous barriers hinder participation in Duchenne clinical trials for Hispanic/Latino families and other populations experiencing health disparities. Addressing these barriers necessitates interventions across multiple stages of the clinical trial enrollment process. Recommendations to enhance participation opportunities include developing clinical trial decision support tools, translating prominent clinical trials educational resources such as ClinicalTrials.gov, fostering trusting family-provider relationships, engaging families in clinical trial design, and establishing ethical guidelines for pre-screening potentially non-compliant patients.

Practical Approaches to Enhancing Fairness, Social Responsibility and the Inclusion of Diverse Viewpoints in Biomedicine.

The following sections are included:Workshop DescriptionLearning ObjectivesPresenter InformationAbout the Workshop OrganizersPresentationsSpeaker Presentations.

Beware of the phony horserace between genes and environments.

Although Burt provides a valuable critique of the scientific value of integrating genetic data into social science research, she reinforces rather than disrupts the age-old horserace between genetic effects and environmental effects. We must move past this false dichotomy to create a new ontology that recognizes the ways in which genetic and environmental processes are inextricably intertwined.

Wrestling with Social and Behavioral Genomics: Risks, Potential Benefits, and Ethical Responsibility.

In this consensus report by a diverse group of academics who conduct and/or are concerned about social and behavioral genomics (SBG) research, the authors recount the often-ugly history of scientific attempts to understand the genetic contributions to human behaviors and social outcomes. They then describe what the current science-including genomewide association studies and polygenic indexes-can and cannot tell us, as well as its risks and potential benefits. They conclude with a discussion of responsible behavior in the context of SBG research. SBG research that compares individuals within a group according to a "sensitive" phenotype requires extra attention to responsible conduct and to responsible communication about the research and its findings. SBG research (1) on sensitive phenotypes that (2) compares two or more groups defined by (a) race, (b) ethnicity, or (c) genetic ancestry (where genetic ancestry could easily be misunderstood as race or ethnicity) requires a compelling justification to be conducted, funded, or published. All authors agree that this justification at least requires a convincing argument that a study's design could yield scientifically valid results; some authors would additionally require the study to have a socially favorable risk-benefit profile.

Wrestling with Public Input on an Ethical Analysis of Scientific Research.

Bioethicists frequently call for empirical researchers to engage participants and community members in their research, but don't themselves typically engage community members in their normative research. In this article, we describe an effort to include members of the public in normative discussions about the risks, potential benefits, and ethical responsibilities of social and behavioral genomics (SBG) research. We reflect on what might-and might not- be gained from engaging the public in normative scholarship and on lessons learned about public perspectives on the risks and potential benefits of SBG research and the responsible conduct and communication of such research. We also provide procedural lessons for others in bioethics who are interested in engaging members of the public in their research.

Re-envisioning community genetics: community empowerment in preventive genomics.

As genomic technologies rapidly develop, polygenic scores (PGS) are entering into a growing conversation on how to improve precision in public health and prevent chronic disease. While the integration of PGS into public health and clinical services raises potential benefits, it also introduces potential harms. In particular, there is a high level of uncertainty about how to incorporate PGS into clinical settings in a manner that is equitable, just, and aligned with the long-term goals of many healthcare systems to support person-centered and value-based care. This paper argues that any conversation about whether and how to design and implement PGS clinical services requires dynamic engagement with local communities, patients, and families. These parties often face the consequences, both positive and negative, of such uncertainties and should therefore drive clinical translation. As a collaborative effort between hospital stakeholders, community partners, and researchers, this paper describes a community-empowered co-design process for addressing uncertainty and making programmatic decisions about the implementation of PGS into clinical services. We provide a framework for others interested in designing clinical programs that are responsive to, and inclusive and respectful of, local communities.

Confronting ethical and social issues related to the genetics of musicality.

New interdisciplinary research into genetic influences on musicality raises a number of ethical and social issues for future avenues of research and public engagement. The historical intersection of music cognition and eugenics heightens the need to vigilantly weigh the potential risks and benefits of these studies and the use of their outcomes. Here, we bring together diverse disciplinary expertise (complex trait genetics, music cognition, musicology, bioethics, developmental psychology, and neuroscience) to interpret and guide the ethical use of findings from recent and future studies. We discuss a framework for incorporating principles of ethically and socially responsible conduct of musicality genetics research into each stage of the research lifecycle: study design, study implementation, potential applications, and communication.

"The elephant in the room": social responsibility in the production of sociogenomics research.

Sociogenomics examines the extent to which genetic differences between individuals relate to differences in social and economic behaviors and outcomes. The field evokes mixed reactions. For some, sociogenomics runs the risk of normalizing eugenic attitudes and legitimizing social inequalities. For others, sociogenomics brings the promise of more robust and nuanced understandings of human behavior. Regardless, a history of misuse and misapplication of genetics raises important questions about researchers' social responsibilities. This paper draws on semi-structured interviews with sociogenomics researchers who investigate intelligence and educational attainment. It does so to understand how researcher's motivations for engaging in a historically burdened field connect to their views on social responsibility and the challenges that come with it. In interviews, researchers highlighted the trade-off between engaging in socially contested research and the potential benefits their work poses to the social sciences and clinical research. They also highlighted the dilemmas of engaging with the public, including the existence of multiple publics. Finally, researchers elucidated uncertainties over what social responsibility is in practice and whether protecting against the misuse and misinterpretation of their research is wholly possible. This paper concludes by offering ways to address some of the challenges of social responsibility in the production of knowledge.

Data sharing and community-engaged research.

Data sharing must be accompanied by responsibility sharing.

Embodying biopolitically discriminate borders: teachers' spatializations of race.

Borders are constructs that shape our understandings of our societies, communities, and the world. Geospatial borders draw distinctions between neighborhoods and schools that are deemed 'worthy' and 'unworthy' of economic, social, and political investment. This paper employs the theoretical framework of 'discriminate biopower' to argue that geospatial borders produce a 'socio-political invisibility' linked to race and racial inequality. Through focus group discussions with kindergarten - grade eight educators in the Chicago metropolitan area of the United States, this paper provides evidence of how understandings of race are spatially applied by teachers. Findings suggest that teachers located and conflated individuals and racial groups with physical locations, demonstrating how spatial borders and the practice of bordering function as a biopolitical and segregationist way to understand race and power.