Integrating Values in Risk Analysis of Biomedical Research: The Case for Regulatory and Law Reform
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper offers a critical appraisal of the regulatory approach towards risk assessments of new biomedical technologies, with a particular emphasis on gene transfer and stem cell research. While the therapeutic and commercial potential of this research is well publicized, the normative and methodological problems pertaining to the assessment of its potential risks to research participants have received less attention. We build on previous analyses of risk assessment as a value-laden, political exercise in regulatory science. Parties to a risk debate can bring different value-frameworks to the process of biomedical research review. We see the potential for a conflict of interest if risk assessments are formulated exclusively by the parties who propose the research, which is currently often the case. They might be more prone to taking risks for the sake of possible benefits and much less risk cautious than the research participants who assume the risks. We argue for a review process which aims to balance the interests of those proposing risk by providing a mandate for the critical interests of those who might assume it. In the paper, we classify two general types of risk that have been highlighted by gene transfer and stem cell research: risks to persons and risks to social values. We then consider three risks which we believe the law should address. These are risks of physical or psychological harm to participants, risks to the objectivity and scientific integrity of research that are posed by conflicts of interest; and briefly, risks to other social values, e.g., public trust in the ethical conduct of research. These are very different areas of risk, but we argue that there is merit in addressing them jointly. In areas where there are problems with the understanding and transmission of risk information to subjects, there is greater concern about impact of conflicts of interest and more reason to develop a fully independent review of risks. We sketch some principles and guidelines for institutional reforms that could inspire the further development of a regulatory or legislative model for the oversight of research with human participants.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.349 | 0.325 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.186 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.046 | 0.058 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.025 |
| Research integrity | 0.050 | 0.045 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".