OpenLB
Open Library of Bioscience
Advanced Search
PloS one
2019;14 (7): e0220438.

The value of bioethical research: A qualitative literature analysis of researchers' statements.

Marcel Mertz, Tobias Fischer, Sabine Salloch
Author Information
  1. Marcel Mertz: Institute of History, Ethics and Philosophy of Medicine, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany. ORCID
  2. Tobias Fischer: Institute of Ethics and History of Medicine, University Medicine Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany.
  3. Sabine Salloch: Institute of Ethics and History of Medicine, University Medicine Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany.
PMID: 31356629 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0220438

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Value and waste in preclinical and clinical research projects are intensively debated in biomedicine at present. Such different aspects as the need for setting objectives and priorities, improving study design, quality of reporting, and problematic incentives of the academic reward system are addressed. While this debate is also fueled by ethical considerations and thus informed by bioethical research, up to now, the field of bioethics lacks a similar extensive debate. Nonetheless, bioethical research should not go unquestioned regarding its scientific or social value. What exactly constitutes the value of bioethical research, however, remains widely unclear so far.
METHODS: This explorative study investigated possible value dimensions for bioethical research by conducting a qualitative literature analysis of researchers' statements about the value of their studies. 40 bioethics articles published 2015 in four relevant journals (The American Journal of Bioethics, Bioethics, BMC Medical Ethics and Journal of Medical Ethics) were analyzed. The value dimensions of "advancing knowledge" (e.g. research results that are relevant for science itself and for further research) and "application" (e.g. increasing applicability of research results in practice) were used as main deductive categories for the analysis. Further subcategories were inductively generated.
RESULTS: The analysis resulted in 62 subcategories representing a wide range of value dimensions for bioethical research. Of these, 45 were subcategories of "advancing knowledge" and 17 of "application". In 21 articles, no value dimensions related to "application" was found; the remaining 19 articles mentioned "advancing knowledge" as well as "application". The value dimensions related to "advancing knowledge" were, in general, more fine-grained.
CONCLUSIONS: Even though limitations arise regarding the sample, the study revealed a plethora of value dimensions that can inform further debates about what makes bioethical research valuable for science and society. Besides theoretical reflections on the value of bioethics more meta-research in bioethics is needed.

References

  1. BMC Med Ethics. 2015 Jan 11;16:2 [PMID: 25578433]
  2. BMC Med Ethics. 2014 Jan 03;15:1 [PMID: 24387594]
  3. Bioethics. 2015 Feb;29(2):98-107 [PMID: 24602115]
  4. BMC Med Ethics. 2018 Jun 15;19(1):60 [PMID: 29902999]
  5. BMC Med Ethics. 2017 Apr 27;18(1):30 [PMID: 28449689]
  6. Hastings Cent Rep. 2016 Sep;46(5):34-9 [PMID: 27649827]
  7. BMC Med Ethics. 2015 Jan 22;16:6 [PMID: 25609036]
  8. GMS Health Technol Assess. 2017 Mar 15;13:Doc02 [PMID: 28326147]
  9. Am J Bioeth. 2015;15(1):3-13 [PMID: 25562214]
  10. BMC Med Ethics. 2014 Sep 05;15:66 [PMID: 25189994]
  11. J Med Ethics. 2015 Feb;41(2):161-4 [PMID: 24319061]
  12. Am J Bioeth. 2015;15(2):3-11 [PMID: 25674948]
  13. Am J Bioeth. 2015;15(2):30-9 [PMID: 25674955]
  14. Circ Res. 2015 Jan 2;116(1):116-26 [PMID: 25552691]
  15. J Med Ethics. 2015 Feb;41(2):165-9 [PMID: 24505116]
  16. Hastings Cent Rep. 2018 Nov;48(6):25-32 [PMID: 30586181]
  17. J Med Ethics. 2015 Mar;41(3):215-9 [PMID: 24574429]
  18. BMC Med Ethics. 2015 Feb 26;16:9 [PMID: 25880418]
  19. BMC Med Ethics. 2015 Mar 04;16:12 [PMID: 25888878]
  20. Bioethics. 2019 Oct;33(8):861-871 [PMID: 31025374]
  21. Lancet. 2014 Jan 11;383(9912):156-65 [PMID: 24411644]
  22. Bioethics. 2015 Feb;29(2):66-73 [PMID: 24547962]
  23. Bioethics. 2017 Feb;31(2):72-76 [PMID: 28060426]
  24. BMC Med Ethics. 2015 Jan 22;16:8 [PMID: 25614083]
  25. Hastings Cent Rep. 2016 Sep;46(5):44-6 [PMID: 27649831]
  26. BMC Med Ethics. 2015 Feb 26;16:11 [PMID: 25890355]
  27. J Med Ethics. 2015 Feb;41(2):179-82 [PMID: 24307618]
  28. BMC Med Ethics. 2014 Apr 08;15:30 [PMID: 24712735]
  29. J Med Ethics. 2015 Feb;41(2):183-5 [PMID: 25210197]
  30. J Hist Med Allied Sci. 2001 Apr;56(2):168-75 [PMID: 11392084]
  31. J Med Ethics. 2012 Feb;38(2):121-6 [PMID: 22080465]
  32. Hastings Cent Rep. 2016 Sep;46(5):41-2 [PMID: 27649829]
  33. PLoS Biol. 2015 Oct 02;13(10):e1002264 [PMID: 26431313]
  34. Bioethics. 2015 Feb;29(2):91-7 [PMID: 24602097]
  35. Shanghai Arch Psychiatry. 2015 Apr 25;27(2):124-5 [PMID: 26120263]
  36. Lancet. 2014 Jan 18;383(9913):257-66 [PMID: 24411650]
  37. Bioethics. 2015 Feb;29(2):59-65 [PMID: 24547903]
  38. BMC Med Ethics. 2015 Jan 10;16:1 [PMID: 25576996]
  39. Med Health Care Philos. 2013 Nov;16(4):761-74 [PMID: 23709338]
  40. Bioethics. 2015 Feb;29(2):133-43 [PMID: 23906367]
  41. Am J Bioeth. 2015;15(5):3-17 [PMID: 25970382]
  42. Lancet. 2014 Jan 11;383(9912):166-75 [PMID: 24411645]
  43. Am J Bioeth. 2015;15(6):2-10 [PMID: 26030484]
  44. J Med Ethics. 2015 Feb;41(2):157-60 [PMID: 24425753]
  45. Am J Bioeth. 2015;15(3):25-36 [PMID: 25786009]
  46. BMC Med Ethics. 2015 Jan 28;16:7 [PMID: 25630339]
  47. BMC Med. 2016 Oct 3;14(1):152 [PMID: 27716264]
  48. Am J Bioeth. 2015;15(1):29-36 [PMID: 25562222]
  49. BMC Med Ethics. 2015 Jan 16;16:4 [PMID: 25591923]
  50. Am J Bioeth. 2015;15(5):38-51 [PMID: 25970392]
  51. Bioethics. 2015 Sep;29(7):523-8 [PMID: 25655982]
  52. Bioethics. 2015 Feb;29(2):108-17 [PMID: 24602147]
  53. Bioethics. 2014 Nov;28(9):481-90 [PMID: 23796275]
  54. Bioethics. 2015 Feb;29(2):74-81 [PMID: 24320715]
  55. Lancet. 2014 Jan 11;383(9912):176-85 [PMID: 24411646]
  56. J Med Ethics. 2015 Feb;41(2):151-6 [PMID: 24413583]
  57. Bioethics. 2015 Feb;29(2):126-32 [PMID: 24117708]
  58. BMC Med Ethics. 2018 Jul 10;19(1):68 [PMID: 29986689]
  59. Am J Bioeth. 2015;15(6):40-9 [PMID: 26030498]
  60. J Med Ethics. 2015 Feb;41(2):170-3 [PMID: 24861043]
  61. J Med Ethics. 2015 Feb;41(2):145-50 [PMID: 24335917]
  62. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2015 Feb;15(1):5-7 [PMID: 25583536]
  63. Bioethics. 2015 Feb;29(2):82-90 [PMID: 24471556]
  64. BMC Med Ethics. 2015 Jan 15;16:3 [PMID: 25591806]
  65. Bioethics. 2019 Oct;33(8):881-889 [PMID: 30735252]
  66. J Med Ethics. 2008 Jun;34(6):472-7 [PMID: 18511623]
  67. Cochlear Implants Int. 2015;16(6):301 [PMID: 26616254]
  68. Lancet. 2016 Apr 9;387(10027):1573-1586 [PMID: 26423180]
  69. BMJ. 2018 Jan 10;360:j5845 [PMID: 29321165]
  70. BMC Med Ethics. 2014 Mar 01;15:17 [PMID: 24580847]
  71. Am J Bioeth. 2015;15(3):3-11 [PMID: 25786002]
  72. BMC Med. 2015 Aug 12;13:187 [PMID: 26265226]
  73. J Med Ethics. 2015 Feb;41(2):175-8 [PMID: 24523029]
  74. Hastings Cent Rep. 2016 Sep;46(5):39-41 [PMID: 27649828]
  75. Bioethics. 2015 Feb;29(2):118-25 [PMID: 24602164]

MeSH Term

Bioethical Issues
Bioethics
Biomedical Research
Humans
Periodicals as Topic
Qualitative Research
Research Design
Research Personnel
Journal Article
Article has an altmetric score of 3

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0valueresearchbioethicaldimensionsbioethicsanalysis"advancingknowledge""application"studyarticlessubcategoriesdebateregardingqualitativeliteratureresearchers'statementsrelevantJournalBioethicsMedicalEthicsegresultssciencerelatedINTRODUCTION:ValuewastepreclinicalclinicalprojectsintensivelydebatedbiomedicinepresentdifferentaspectsneedsettingobjectivesprioritiesimprovingdesignqualityreportingproblematicincentivesacademicrewardsystemaddressedalsofueledethicalconsiderationsthusinformednowfieldlackssimilarextensiveNonethelessgounquestionedscientificsocialexactlyconstituteshoweverremainswidelyunclearfarMETHODS:explorativeinvestigatedpossibleconductingstudies40published2015fourjournalsAmericanBMCanalyzedincreasingapplicabilitypracticeusedmaindeductivecategoriesinductivelygeneratedRESULTS:resulted62representingwiderange451721foundremaining19mentionedwellgeneralfine-grainedCONCLUSIONS:EventhoughlimitationsarisesamplerevealedplethoracaninformdebatesmakesvaluablesocietyBesidestheoreticalreflectionsmeta-researchneededresearch:

Similar Articles

Cited By (3)