Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Community Bioethics: Provocations for Institutionalized Ethics from Community-Based Biology Cover

Community Bioethics: Provocations for Institutionalized Ethics from Community-Based Biology

Citizen Science: Theory and Practice
Volume 7 (2022): Issue 1
By: Andy Murray and  Dan Santos  
Open Access
|Dec 2022

References

  1. 1Aungst, H, Fishman, JR and McGowan, ML. 2017. Participatory Genomic Research: Ethical Issues from the Bottom Up to the Top Down. Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics, 18: 357–367. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-genom-091416-035230
    Back to article
  2. 2Azétsop, J and Rennie, S 2010. Principlism, medical individualism, and health promotion in resource-poor countries: can autonomy-based bioethics promote social justice and population health? Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, 5(1): 1. DOI: 10.1186/1747-5341-5-1
    Back to article
  3. 3Baumgaertner, E 2018. As D.I.Y. Gene Editing Gains Popularity, ‘Someone Is Going to Get Hurt’. The New York Times, 14 May. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/14/science/biohackers-gene-editing-virus.html (accessed 5 February 2020).
    Back to article
  4. 4Begley, S. 2018. He took a crash course in bioethics. Then he created CRISPR babies. In: STAT. Available at: https://www.statnews.com/2018/11/27/crispr-babies-creator-soaked-up-bioethics/ (accessed 27 May 2022).
    Back to article
  5. 5Berlinguer, G. 2004. Bioethics, health, and inequality. The Lancet, 364(9439): 1086–1091. Elsevier. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(04)17066-9
    Back to article
  6. 6Birch, K. 2008. Neoliberalising Bioethics: Bias, Enhancement and Economistic Ethics. Genomics, Society and Policy, 4(2): 1. DOI: 10.1186/1746-5354-4-2-1
    Back to article
  7. 7Brock, DW. 2010. Broadening the Bioethics Agenda*. In: Health Rights. New York: Routledge.
    Back to article
  8. 8Bromwich, JE. 2018. Death of a Biohacker. The New York Times, 19 May. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/19/style/biohacker-death-aaron-traywick.html (accessed 23 May 2022).
    Back to article
  9. 9Chattopadhyay, S and De Vries, R. 2008. Bioethical concerns are global, bioethics is Western. Eubios journal of Asian and international bioethics: EJAIB, 18(4): 106–109.
    Back to article
  10. 10Clarke, AE, Mamo, L, Fosket, JR, et al. 2010. Biomedicalization: Technoscience, Health, and Illness in the U.S. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. DOI: 10.2307/j.ctv125jk5c
    Back to article
  11. 11Cohen, J. 2019. The untold story of the ‘circle of trust’ behind the world’s first gene-edited babies. Available at: https://www.science.org/content/article/untold-story-circle-trust-behind-world-s-first-gene-edited-babies (accessed 27 May 2022).
    Back to article
  12. 12Daniels, N. 2006. Equity and Population Health: Toward a Broader Bioethics Agenda. Hastings Center Report, 36(4): 22–35. DOI: 10.1353/hcr.2006.0058
    Back to article
  13. 13De Vries, RG, Turner, L, Orfali, K, et al. 2007. Social science and bioethics: morality from the ground up. Clinical Ethics, 2(1): 33–35. SAGE Publications. DOI: 10.1258/147775007780267192
    Back to article
  14. 14DIYbio. 2011. Codes. Available at: https://diybio.org/codes/ (accessed 19 May 2022).
    Back to article
  15. 15Evans, JH. 2000. A Sociological Account of the Growth of Principlism. The Hastings Center Report, 30(5): 31–38. DOI: 10.2307/3527886
    Back to article
  16. 16Farmer, P. 2004. Rethinking Medical Ethics: A View From Below. Developing World Bioethics, 4(1): 17–41. DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-8731.2004.00065.x
    Back to article
  17. 17FDA. 2021. Biosimilar and Interchangeable Biologics: More Treatment Choices. FDA. Available at: https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/biosimilar-and-interchangeable-biologics-more-treatment-choices (accessed 25 November 2022).
    Back to article
  18. 18Foti, N. 2020. Community-based Insulin: An Urgent Response to Systemic Failures in the US Pharmaceutical Regime. Berkeley, CA: Othering & Belonging Institute. Available at: https://belonging.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/community-based_insulin_report.pdf?file=1&force=1 (accessed 24 May 2022).
    Back to article
  19. 19Fox, RC and Swazey, JP. 2008. Observing Bioethics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195365559.001.0001
    Back to article
  20. 20Global Community Bio Summit. 2018. Statement of Purpose 3.0. Available at: https://www.biosummit.org/statement-of-shared-purpose (accessed 27 May 2022).
    Back to article
  21. 21Global Community Bio Summit. 2019. Community Ethics Document 1.0. Available at: https://www.biosummit.org/ethics (accessed 27 May 2022).
    Back to article
  22. 22Greene, JA and Riggs, KR. 2015. Why Is There No Generic Insulin? Historical Origins of a Modern Problem. New England Journal of Medicine, 372(12): 1171–1175. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMms1411398
    Back to article
  23. 23Grushkin, D. 2018. Biohackers are about open-access to science, not DIY pandemics. Stop misrepresenting us. In: STAT. Available at: https://www.statnews.com/2018/06/04/biohacker-open-access-science/ (accessed 30 May 2022).
    Back to article
  24. 24Guerrini, CJ, Wexler, A, Zettler, PJ, et al. 2019. Biomedical Citizen Science or Something Else? Reflections on Terms and Definitions. American Journal of Bioethics, 19(8): 17–19. DOI: 10.1080/15265161.2019.1619880
    Back to article
  25. 25Health Care Cost Institute (HCCI). 2019. Spending on Individuals with Type 1 Diabetes and the Role of Rapidly Increasing Insulin Prices. Available at: https://healthcostinstitute.org/diabetes-and-insulin/spending-on-individuals-with-type-1-diabetes-and-the-role-of-rapidly-increasing-insulin-prices (accessed 24 May 2022).
    Back to article
  26. 26Herkert, D, Vijayakumar, P, Luo, J, et al. 2019. Cost-Related Insulin Underuse Among Patients With Diabetes. JAMA Internal Medicine, 179(1): 112–114. DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.5008
    Back to article
  27. 27Hurlbut, JB. 2020. Imperatives of Governance: Human Genome Editing and the Problem of Progress. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 63(1): 177–194. DOI: 10.1353/pbm.2020.0013
    Back to article
  28. 28I-MAK. 2018. Lantus. Available at: https://www.i-mak.org/lantus/ (accessed 24 May 2022).
    Back to article
  29. 29Illingworth, P and Parmet, WE. 2009. The Ethical Implications of the Social Determinants of Health: A Global Renaissance for Bioethics. Bioethics, 23(2): ii–v. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2008.00719.x
    Back to article
  30. 30Jasanoff, S. (ed.) 2004. States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and the Social Order. New York: Routledge.
    Back to article
  31. 31Jasanoff, S. 2005. Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. DOI: 10.1515/9781400837311
    Back to article
  32. 32Kennedy, B, Tyson, A and Funk, C. 2022. Americans’ Trust in Scientists, Other Groups Declines. In: Pew Research Center Science & Society. Available at: https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2022/02/15/americans-trust-in-scientists-other-groups-declines/ (accessed 19 September 2022).
    Back to article
  33. 33Kuiken, T. 2016. Governance: Learn from DIY biologists. Nature, 531(7593): 167–168. DOI: 10.1038/531167a
    Back to article
  34. 34Lang, D. 2014. DIYBio Comes of Age. Wired. Available at: https://www.wired.com/2014/11/diybio-comes-of-age/ (accessed 27 May 2022).
    Back to article
  35. 35Lee, SM. 2017. This Biohacker Is Trying To Edit His Own DNA And Wants You To Join Him. Available at: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemlee/this-biohacker-wants-to-edit-his-own-dna (accessed 23 May 2022).
    Back to article
  36. 36Maloney, D. 2021. Open-Source Insulin: Biohackers Aiming For Distributed Production. In: Hackaday. Available at: https://hackaday.com/2021/08/23/open-source-insulin-biohackers-aiming-for-distributed-production/ (accessed 27 May 2022).
    Back to article
  37. 37Marks, L. 2021. Biohacking: The Ethical Implications of Democratizing Biotechnology. Available at: https://vce.usc.edu/volume-5-issue-2/biohacking-the-ethical-implications-of-democratizing-biotechnology/ (accessed 20 May 2022).
    Back to article
  38. 38McGowan, ML, Choudhury, S, Juengst, ET, et al. 2017. “Let’s pull these technologies out of the ivory tower”: The politics, ethos, and ironies of participant-driven genomic research. BioSocieties, 12(4): 494–519. DOI: 10.1057/s41292-017-0043-6
    Back to article
  39. 39Obasogie, OK and Darnovsky, M (eds.) 2018. Beyond Bioethics: Toward a New Biopolitics. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. DOI: 10.1525/9780520961944
    Back to article
  40. 40Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP). 2018. Pre-2018 Requirements. Available at: https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/regulations/regulatory-text/index.html (accessed 25 May 2022).
    Back to article
  41. 41Pearlman, A and Kong, DS. 2022. Towards collectively-defined ethics standards for independent researchers and community bio groups. Available at: https://www.alexpearlman.com/norms (accessed 18 February 2022).
    Back to article
  42. 42Petersen, A. 2013. From bioethics to a sociology of bio-knowledge. Social Science & Medicine, 98: 264–270. DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.12.030
    Back to article
  43. 43Pontoniere, P. 2022. The Synthetic Biology Community Builder. Available at: https://neo.life/2022/04/the-synthetic-biology-community-builder/ (accessed 27 May 2022).
    Back to article
  44. 44Powers, M and Faden, RR. 2006. Social Justice: The Moral Foundations of Public Health and Health Policy. Oxford University Press.
    Back to article
  45. 45PRICED OUT OF A LIFESAVING DRUG: THE HUMAN IMPACT OF RISING INSULIN COSTS. (n.d.). Available at: http://www.congress.gov/ (accessed 25 November 2022).
    Back to article
  46. 46Rasmussen, LM. 2016. Filling the ‘Ethics Gap’ in Citizen Science Research: A Workshop Report. Available at: https://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/supported/translational/peph/webinars/ethics/rasmussen_508.pdf (accessed 27 May 2022). DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190947750.013.36
    Back to article
  47. 47Rasmussen, LM. 2019a. When Citizens Do Science: Stories from Labs, Garages, and Beyond. Narrative Inquiry in Bioethics, 9(1): 1–4. DOI: 10.1353/nib.2019.0001
    Back to article
  48. 48Rasmussen, LM. 2019b. Beyond Belmont—and Beyond Regulations. The American Journal of Bioethics, 19(8): 19–21. DOI: 10.1080/15265161.2019.1619879
    Back to article
  49. 49Rasmussen, LM, Guerrini, CJ, Kuiken, T, et al. 2020. Realizing Present and Future Promise of DIY Biology and Medicine through a Trust Architecture. Hastings Center Report, 50(6): 10–14. DOI: 10.1002/hast.1194
    Back to article
  50. 50Regalado, A. 2018. Rogue Chinese CRISPR scientist cited US report as his green light. Available at: https://www.technologyreview.com/2018/11/27/1821/rogue-chinese-crispr-scientist-cited-us-report-as-his-green-light/ (accessed 29 May 2022).
    Back to article
  51. 51Rennie, S and Mupenda, B. 2008. Living apart together: reflections on bioethics, global inequality and social justice. Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, 3(1): 25. DOI: 10.1186/1747-5341-3-25
    Back to article
  52. 52Robbins, R. 2016. The insulin market is heading for a shakeup. But patients may not benefit. Available at: https://www.statnews.com/2016/10/14/insulin-prices-generics/ (accessed 24 May 2022).
    Back to article
  53. 53Shukman, D. 2012. Early days in a DIY biological revolution. BBC News, 27 March. Available at: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-17511710 (accessed 27 May 2022).
    Back to article
  54. 54Star, SL. 1993. Cooperation Without Consensus in Scientific Problem Solving: Dynamics of Closure in Open Systems. In: Easterbrook, S (ed.) CSCW: Cooperation or Conflict? Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 93–106. London: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4471-1981-4_3
    Back to article
  55. 55Star, SL and Griesemer, JR. 1989. Institutional Ecology, ‘Translations’ and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science, 19(3): 387–420. DOI: 10.1177/030631289019003001
    Back to article
  56. 56Sunder Rajan, K. 2006. Biocapital: The Constitution of Postgenomic Life. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. DOI: 10.1515/9780822388005
    Back to article
  57. 57Talbot, M. 2020. The Rogue Experimenters. The New Yorker, 18 May. Available at: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/05/25/the-rogue-experimenters (accessed 27 May 2022).
    Back to article
  58. 58Tracy, M and Hsu, T. 2019. Director of M.I.T.’s Media Lab Resigns After Taking Money From Jeffrey Epstein. The New York Times, 7 September. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/07/business/mit-media-lab-jeffrey-epstein-joichi-ito.html (accessed 19 September 2022).
    Back to article
  59. 59Turner, L. 2004. Bioethics needs to rethink its agenda. BMJ, 328(7432): 175. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.328.7432.175
    Back to article
  60. 60Trejo, M, Canfield, I, Brooks, WB, et al. 2021. “A Cohort of Pirate Ships”: Biomedical Citizen Scientists’ Attitudes Toward Ethical Oversight. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice, 6(1): 15. DOI: 10.5334/cstp.360
    Back to article
  61. 61Trejo, M, Canfield, I, Robinson, JO, et al. 2020. How Biomedical Citizen Scientists Define What They Do: It’s All in the Name. AJOB Empirical Bioethics, 12(1): 63–70. Taylor & Francis. DOI: 10.1080/23294515.2020.1825139
    Back to article
  62. 62Unger, JM, Gralow, JR, Albain, KS, et al. 2016. Patient Income Level and Cancer Clinical Trial Participation: A Prospective Survey Study. JAMA oncology, 2(1): 137–139. DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.3924
    Back to article
  63. 63Vayena, E and Tasioulas, J. 2013. The ethics of participant-led biomedical research. Nature Biotechnology, 31(9): 786–787. DOI: 10.1038/nbt.2692
    Back to article
  64. 64Ware, SB. 2020. Biohacking Village – Towards an Institutional Review Board (IRB) for Biohackers. Virtual. Available at: https://av.tib.eu/media/49901?portal-locale=en (accessed 18 February 2022).
    Back to article
  65. 65Wexler, A and Rasmussen, L. (n.d.) RAPID: Assessing Ethical Challenges in Conducting Do-it-yourself (DIY) Science During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Available at: https://grantome.com/grant/NSF/SMA-2032598 (accessed 19 May 2022).
    Back to article
  66. 66Wiggins, A and Wilbanks, J. 2019. The Rise of Citizen Science in Health and Biomedical Research. The American Journal of Bioethics, 19(8): 3–14. DOI: 10.1080/15265161.2019.1619859
    Back to article
  67. 67Wirtz, VJ, Knox, R, Cao, C, et al. 2016. Insulin Market Profile. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Health Action International. Available at: https://haiweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/ACCISS_Insulin-Market-Profile_FINAL.pdf (accessed 24 May 2022).
    Back to article
  68. 68Wolinsky, H. 2016. The FBI and biohackers: an unusual relationship. EMBO Reports, 17(6): 793–796. DOI: 10.15252/embr.201642483
    Back to article
  69. 69Wynne, B. 1992. Misunderstood misunderstanding: social identities and public uptake of science. Public Understanding of Science, 1(3): 281–304. DOI: 10.1088/0963-6625/1/3/004
    Back to article
  70. 70Wynne, B. 2006. Public Engagement as a Means of Restoring Public Trust in Science – Hitting the Notes, but Missing the Music? Public Health Genomics, 9(3): 211–220. DOI: 10.1159/000092659
    Back to article
  71. 71Zettler, PJ, Guerrini, CJ and Sherkow, JS. 2019. Regulating genetic biohacking. Science, 365(6448): 34–36. DOI: 10.1126/science.aax3248
    Back to article
  72. 72Zhang, S. 2018. A Biohacker Regrets Publicly Injecting Himself With CRISPR. Available at: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/02/biohacking-stunts-crispr/553511/ (accessed 17 March 2020).
    Back to article
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/cstp.525 | Journal eISSN: 2057-4991
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Submitted on: May 30, 2022
Accepted on: Sep 20, 2022
Published on: Dec 15, 2022
Published by: Ubiquity Press
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 1 issue per year
Keywords:
ethics,
bioethics,
STS,
community bio,
Open Insulin

© 2022 Andy Murray, Dan Santos, published by Ubiquity Press
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Previous articleVolume 7 (2022): Issue 1Next article