An overview of the role of society and risk in xenotransplantation
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Over time, the notion of public has evolved. While the concept of public was initially conceived of as a single undifferentiated entity, the common understanding is now that a variety of differentiated, multifaceted and multiple public(s) can be constructed for different purposes. This is equally true in xenotransplantation; the literature shows how different kind of publics can be introduced as relevant. The paper explores the notion of public and the contemporary participatory procedures as participatory rights for citizens in decisions concerning technoscience and society. Its perspective, thus, is normative; namely, it aims at understanding how the political role of citizens is changing in democratic societies where matters of innovation are concerned. It is focused on xenotransplantation whose connections with public discourse and practices are quite paradigmatic among new emerging biomedical technologies, due to its peculiar risks. METHODS AND RESULTS: The paper reviews the historical background of risk communication and public involvement in science-based decision-making and provides an overview of the current roles and meanings of deliberative procedures in xenotransplantation. After a short discussion of the history of the social implementation of xenotransplantation, the construction of the different publics dealing with this biomedical technology is briefly analysed. Publics have been firstly conceived of as objects of research, which has looked at them to quantify people's positive and negative attitudes towards xenotransplantation. Further developments have led to the notion of the public as composed of citizens, empowered as subjects of decisions. In both Canadian and Australian consultations, citizens were engaged in a complex learning process aimed at committing them to a decision. Despite the fact both public consultations represented important forms of experimental democracy, they were still focused on seeking consensus and assessing compliance from citizens. New Zealand is the most recent example of public consultation in xenotransplantation. Likewise, several public consultations have recently been launched by the European Commission on Advanced Therapies. Unlike in the Canadian and Australian cases, the latter initiatives aimed to reach only certain parts of the population, and the overall consultations were prepared to seek approval. CONCLUSIONS: Several categories of individuals may be interesting and interested publics in xenotransplantation. This is a field in which the importance of the potential risks that xenotransplants pose to society has been widely discussed. The point is that publics should not only be educated about the risk but should be given an opportunity to participate actively in the decision about whether and under what conditions they are exposed to the risk. Likewise, the boundaries between surveys, consultations and collection of advice may be blurred in actual practices. The hope remains that all different instruments either to collect or disseminate knowledge, and to explore new tools of governance may help connect science and policy to society in deeper and more complex ways. The next step points to a different meaning of public participation. It is shifting from participation as mere consensus and risk acceptance, to public engagement as a form of shared responsibility for risk control and regulatory decision-making.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,006 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,006 |
| Communication savante | 0,006 | 0,007 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».