Literature DB >> 20235863

Perspectives of Canadian researchers on ethics review of neuroimaging research.

C Deslauriers1, E Bell, N Palmour, B Pike, J Doyon, E Racine.   

Abstract

The current and potential uses of neuroimaging in healthcare and beyond have spurred discussion about the ethical issues related to neuroimaging and neuroimaging research. This study examined the perspectives of neuroimagers on ethical issues in their research and on the ethics review process. One hundred neuroimagers from 13 Canadian neuroscience centers completed an online survey and 35 semi-structured interviews were conducted. Neuroimagers felt that most ethical and social issues identified in the literature were dealt with adequately, well, and even very well by research ethics boards (REBs), but some issues such as incidental findings and transfer of knowledge were problematic. Neuroimagers reported a range of practical problems in the ethics review process. We aimed to gather perspectives from REB on the ethics review process, but insufficient participation by REBs prevented us from reporting their perspectives. Given shortcomings identified by neuroimagers as well as longstanding issues in Canadian ethics governance, we believe that substantial challenges exist in Canadian research ethics governance that jeopardize trust, communication, and the overall soundness of research ethics governance. Neuroimagers and REBs should consider their shared responsibilities in developing guidance to handle issues such as incidental findings, risk assessment, and knowledge transfer.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20235863     DOI: 10.1525/jer.2010.5.1.49

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics        ISSN: 1556-2646            Impact factor:   1.742


  13 in total

1.  More education, less administration: reflections of neuroimagers' attitudes to ethics through the qualitative looking glass.

Authors:  A A Kehagia; K Tairyan; C Federico; G H Glover; J Illes
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2011-05-28       Impact factor: 3.525

2.  Ethics review as a component of institutional approval for a multicentre continuous quality improvement project: the investigator's perspective.

Authors:  Hanna Ezzat; Sue Ross; Peter von Dadelszen; Tara Morris; Robert Liston; Laura A Magee
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2010-07-30       Impact factor: 2.655

3.  Stakeholder Opinions And Ethical Perspectives Support Complete Disclosure Of Incidental Findings In MRI Research.

Authors:  John P Phillips; Caitlin Cole; John P Gluck; Jody M Shoemaker; Linda Petree; Deborah Helitzer; Ronald Schrader; Mark Holdsworth
Journal:  Ethics Behav       Date:  2014-10-20

4.  Incidental Findings Among Youth Participating in Multimodal Imaging Research: Characteristics of Findings and Description of a Management Approach.

Authors:  Jessica L Roane; Megan Mio; Jacqueline Viner; Ariel Bettridge; Chinthaka Heyn; Idan Roifman; Beth Selkirk; Peter Kertes; Bradley J MacIntosh; Vivekanandan Thayalasuthan; Garry Detzler; Ruby Endre; Laura Jimenez-Juan; Blair Henry; Brian J Murray; Benjamin I Goldstein
Journal:  Front Pediatr       Date:  2022-06-23       Impact factor: 3.569

5.  Reducing barriers to ethics in neuroscience.

Authors:  Judy Illes; Kate Tairyan; Carole A Federico; Aline Tabet; Gary H Glover
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2010-10-04       Impact factor: 3.169

6.  Informed consent for MRI and fMRI research: analysis of a sample of Canadian consent documents.

Authors:  Nicole Palmour; William Affleck; Emily Bell; Constance Deslauriers; Bruce Pike; Julien Doyon; Eric Racine
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2011-01-14       Impact factor: 2.652

7.  Neuroethics and fMRI: mapping a fledgling relationship.

Authors:  Alex Garnett; Louise Whiteley; Heather Piwowar; Edie Rasmussen; Judy Illes
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-04-22       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Untapped ethical resources for neurodegeneration research.

Authors:  Julie M Robillard; Carole A Federico; Kate Tairyan; Adrian J Ivinson; Judy Illes
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2011-06-02       Impact factor: 2.652

9.  "Can it read my mind?" - What do the public and experts think of the current (mis)uses of neuroimaging?

Authors:  Joanna M Wardlaw; Garret O'Connell; Kirsten Shuler; Janet DeWilde; Jane Haley; Oliver Escobar; Shaun Murray; Robert Rae; Donald Jarvie; Peter Sandercock; Burkhard Schafer
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-10-04       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Handling incidental findings in neuroimaging research in Japan: current state of research facilities and attitudes of investigators and the general population.

Authors:  Misao Fujita; Yoshinori Hayashi; Shimon Tashiro; Kyoko Takashima; Eisuke Nakazawa; Akira Akabayashi
Journal:  Health Res Policy Syst       Date:  2014-10-06
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.