Lisa Rasmussen | University of North Carolina at Charlotte (original) (raw)
Papers by Lisa Rasmussen
Accountability in Research
Accountability in Research
It is a good time to be a bioethicist. Medicine, pharmaceutical development, and the culture wars... more It is a good time to be a bioethicist. Medicine, pharmaceutical development, and the culture wars combine to provide urgency and public interest regarding the traditional questions of moral philosophy in which bioethicists are trained. A fairly recent addition to the repertoire of bioethics is consultation for pharmaceutical corporations, which might involve, among other possible consulting engagements, offering an opinion on contemplated research, participation in an ongoing ethics board overseeing research activities, or preparation of analyses on particular bioethics issues.
IRB: Ethics& Human Research
Peer Review, Peer Education, and Modeling in the Practice of Clinical Ethics Consultation: The Zadeh Project, 2018
Science and Engineering Ethics, 2020
Intellectual contribution in the form of authorship is a fundamental component of the academic ca... more Intellectual contribution in the form of authorship is a fundamental component of the academic career. While research has addressed questionable and harmful authorship practices, there has largely been no discussion of how U.S. academic institutions interpret and potentially mitigate such practices through the use of institution-level authorship policies. To gain a better understanding of the role of U.S. academic institutions in authorship practices, we conducted a systematic review of publicly available authorship policies for U.S. doctoral institutions (using the 266 2018 Carnegie-classified R1 and R2 Universities), focusing on components such as specification of authorship criteria, recommendations for discussing authorship, dispute resolution processes, and guidance for faculty-student collaborations. We found that only 24% of the 266 Carnegie R1 and R2 Universities had publicly available authorship policies. Within these policies, the majority (93%) specified criteria for auth...
Angewandte Chemie International Edition, 2014
Topmost in my research hierarchy has always been research aimed at uncovering a truth of nature. ... more Topmost in my research hierarchy has always been research aimed at uncovering a truth of nature. Examples of truths are Louis E. Brus model of size quantization in semiconductor particle colloids and the existence of new forms of carbon, namely the fullerenes (Harold Kroto, Robert Curl, and Richard Smalley) and nanotubes (Sumio Iijima). Because of its sheer beauty and elegance, the uncovering of truths requires no justification. If justification were, however, required, I would point out that most of the people-serving and lifeextending products, processes, and services that were introduced in my lifetime are based on truths uncovered in the past two centuries. Most, but not all, of these truths were uncovered at modest cost to taxpayers, often by individuals or small teams; only in a few fields, like particle physics and astrophysics, did important discoveries require very large groups. Review of authorship of the publications by the great scientists at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute/Fritz Haber Institute or of pioneering researchers at Bell Laboratories shows few coauthors. At Bell Laboratories, where I worked from 1963–1964 and 1975–1988, researchers were rarely assisted by more than a single associate, even after being elected to one of the US National Academies, or being awarded prestigious prizes and medals, including Nobel Prizes. It was recognized that the uncovering of truths is more often than not thought-limited rather than laborlimited; thus large teams were rarely needed. When an important observation did require a larger team, researchers of Bell Laboratories partnered with their peers instead of relying on the labor of less-qualified co-workers. At the same time, it was profoundly appreciated that creating a product, process, or service does require a large multidisciplinary team. For this reason, when 28000 people worked at Bell Laboratories, about 27 000 developed, engineered, improved on, or lowered the cost of products and services. Only about 500 researchers supported by 500 associates covered all of the physical and engineering sciences, computer and information science, mathematics, economics, and cognitive science. Their studies were rarely redundant.
The Journal of clinical ethics, 2011
Clinical ethics consultation is on the horns of a dilemma. One horn skewers the field for its lac... more Clinical ethics consultation is on the horns of a dilemma. One horn skewers the field for its lack of standards, while the other horn skewers it for proposing arbitrary or deeply contested foundations. I articulate the dilemma by discussing several critiques of the field and the challenge of formulating standards and suggest that the solution lies, at least until a robust consensus emerges, with establishing a list of proscriptive standards to guide the field.
j| lthough criticism of a powerful bureaucratic / j| body is expected, your local institutional r... more j| lthough criticism of a powerful bureaucratic / j| body is expected, your local institutional review JL board (IRB) might dese ve a touch of sympathy, having been subjected to withering critique in recent years for a long list of sins. The observed faults of IRBs have been well summarized1 and include inconsistency, delay, grammatical pedantry, excessive conservatism regarding legal risk, ignorance of fields reviewed, and threats to ac demic freedom.2 Minimal-risk rese rch is a particular area of controversy because the bureaucratic bu den of human subjects research oversight seems severely disproportional to the potential risks of harm to research participants, as well as to the effort required to condu t the research itself. Many of these complaints are legitimate, and IRB review of a researcher's proposed study can engender anger, frustration, and stress. Unfortunately, such responses can impede an accurate assessment of both the cause of the roblem and its potential soluti...
In citizen science, data stewards and data producers are often not the same people. When those wh... more In citizen science, data stewards and data producers are often not the same people. When those who have labored on data collection are not in control of the data, ethical problems could arise from this basic structural feature. In this Perspective, we advance the proposition that stewarding data sets generated by volunteers involves the typical technical decisions in conventional research plus a suite of ethical decisions stemming from the relationship between professionals and volunteers. Differences in power, priorities, values, and vulnerabilities are features of the relationship between professionals and volunteers. Thus, ethical decisions about open data practices in citizen science include, but are not limited to, questions grounded in respect for volunteers: who decides data governance structures, who receives attribution for a data set, which data are accessible and to whom, and whose interests are served by the data use/re-use. We highlight ethical issues that citizen scien...
Human subject research in the United States has historically been governed by federal regulations... more Human subject research in the United States has historically been governed by federal regulations attached to grant funding support. Through this regulatory reach, it has been possible to enforce standards of ethical treatment, built on the foundations of the Nuremberg Code, Declaration of Helsinki, and the Belmont Report, on the vast majority of research with human subjects in the United States. However, new research methods, such as citizen science, DIY biology, biohacking, and corporate research all pose challenges to the conventional approach, because they can be left ungoverned by these regulations. This requires us to think anew about how to ensure such research is conducted ethically. How can we think about ethical research in the absence of regulatorily required or universally shared norms?
This chapter outlines some of the main ethical issues in citizen science research, a new research... more This chapter outlines some of the main ethical issues in citizen science research, a new research approach that involves lay members of the public in research for which they are not necessarily professionally trained. Although some of this work is covered by existing research ethics regulations, much is not; and it is not clear how to ensure ethical citizen science research. The chapter briefly describes citizen science research, including the nature of its relationship to existing regulations. It also outlines some of the ethical issues that arise in citizen science research—some familiar, some novel—and offers “trust architecture” as a concept to guide researchers in considering how to satisfy the ethical demands of their work.
Clinical ethics consultation is on the horns of a dilemma. One horn skewers the field for its lac... more Clinical ethics consultation is on the horns of a dilemma. One horn skewers the field for its lack of standards, while the other horn skewers it for proposing arbitrary or deeply contested foundations. I articulate the dilemma by discussing several critiques of the field and the challenge of formulating standards and suggest that the solution lies, at least until a robust consensus emerges, with establishing a list of proscriptive standards to guide the field.
Philosophy and Medicine, 2015
the material is concerned, specifi cally the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustra... more the material is concerned, specifi cally the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfi lms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specifi c statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The American Journal of Bioethics
Citizen Science: Theory and Practice
So, you suspect that someone in a citizen science project committed research misconduct. What do ... more So, you suspect that someone in a citizen science project committed research misconduct. What do you do now? As citizen science methods become increasingly popular, it seems inevitable that at some point, someone identifying themselves as a citizen scientist will be accused of committing research misconduct. Yet the growth of the field also takes research increasingly outside of traditional regulatory mechanisms of identifying, investigating, and delivering consequences for research misconduct. How could we prevent or handle an allegation of scientific misconduct in citizen science that falls outside of our familiar regulatory remedies? And more broadly, what does this imply for ensuring scientific integrity in citizen science? I argue that the increasing use of new research methods in citizen science poses a challenge to traditional approaches to research misconduct, and that we should consider how to confront issues of research misconduct in citizen science. I briefly describe existing approaches to research misconduct and some aspects of citizen science giving rise to the problem, then consider alternative mechanisms, ranging from tort law to professional responsibility to a proposed "research integrity insurance," that might be deployed to address and prevent such cases.
Citizen Science: Theory and Practice
Philosophy and Medicine, 2015
Scientific Reports
F. P. Bridges 2 "Citizen science" refers to the participation of lay individuals in scientific st... more F. P. Bridges 2 "Citizen science" refers to the participation of lay individuals in scientific studies and other activities having scientific objectives. Citizen science gives rise to unique ethical issues that stem from the potentially multifaceted contributions of citizen scientists to the research process. We sought to explore the ethical issues that are most concerning to citizen scientist practitioners, participants, and scholars to support ethical practices in citizen science. We developed a best-worst scaling experiment using a balanced incomplete block design and fielded it with respondents recruited through the U.S.-based Citizen Science Association. Respondents were shown repeated subsets of 11 ethical issues and identified the most and least concerning issues in each subset. Latent class analysis revealed two respondent classes. The "Power to the People" class was most concerned about power imbalance between project leaders and participants, exploitation of participants, and lack of diverse participation. The "Show Me the Data" class was most concerned about the quality of data generated by citizen science projects and failure of projects to share data and other research outputs. "Citizen science" is an umbrella term that refers to the participation of lay individuals in scientific studies and other activities having scientific objectives 1. Participants in citizen science projects-called "citizen scientists"potentially make diverse contributions to these projects, depending on their design and objectives 2,3. Although there are examples of citizen science projects in the social sciences and humanities, they appear to be most prevalent in the natural sciences and include projects focused on, for example, human health, wildlife, ecology, and natural resources and environments 4,5. The structure and aims of each citizen science project are unique, but they share an ethos of respect for and optimism about the potential of lay individuals to contribute to scientific understanding 2,6. As citizen science approaches in research grow in popularity, attention is focusing on the ethical issues they raise 7-16. Some issues are new to research ethics and stem from the potentially multifaceted contributions of citizen scientists to the research process (e.g., the potential for projects to overburden participants with unpaid "work" or not provide appropriate attribution to participants 8,9,11,12,14). Other issues result from citizen science's challenge to current interpretations of research ethics rules and norms (e.g., the assessment of risks and benefits for participants who both act as traditional research subjects and collect, manage, or analyze data 10,11,14). Yet another class of issues encompasses known issues in research ethics that are potentially aggravated in citizen science contexts (e.g., the use or availability of data in ways inconsistent with expectations of participants and contributors 13,14). In 2017, a workshop funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) was held for the purpose of identifying ethical issues faced or created by citizen science projects, defined broadly to encompass projects relevant to any scientific field 17. Titled "Filling the 'Ethics Gap' in Citizen Science, " the interdisciplinary workshop, which was attended by almost 40 U.S.-based citizen science project leaders, participants, and scholars, resulted in a master list of over 60 ethical issues. One objective of the workshop was to begin prioritizing these issues 17. However, the
Accountability in Research
Accountability in Research
It is a good time to be a bioethicist. Medicine, pharmaceutical development, and the culture wars... more It is a good time to be a bioethicist. Medicine, pharmaceutical development, and the culture wars combine to provide urgency and public interest regarding the traditional questions of moral philosophy in which bioethicists are trained. A fairly recent addition to the repertoire of bioethics is consultation for pharmaceutical corporations, which might involve, among other possible consulting engagements, offering an opinion on contemplated research, participation in an ongoing ethics board overseeing research activities, or preparation of analyses on particular bioethics issues.
IRB: Ethics& Human Research
Peer Review, Peer Education, and Modeling in the Practice of Clinical Ethics Consultation: The Zadeh Project, 2018
Science and Engineering Ethics, 2020
Intellectual contribution in the form of authorship is a fundamental component of the academic ca... more Intellectual contribution in the form of authorship is a fundamental component of the academic career. While research has addressed questionable and harmful authorship practices, there has largely been no discussion of how U.S. academic institutions interpret and potentially mitigate such practices through the use of institution-level authorship policies. To gain a better understanding of the role of U.S. academic institutions in authorship practices, we conducted a systematic review of publicly available authorship policies for U.S. doctoral institutions (using the 266 2018 Carnegie-classified R1 and R2 Universities), focusing on components such as specification of authorship criteria, recommendations for discussing authorship, dispute resolution processes, and guidance for faculty-student collaborations. We found that only 24% of the 266 Carnegie R1 and R2 Universities had publicly available authorship policies. Within these policies, the majority (93%) specified criteria for auth...
Angewandte Chemie International Edition, 2014
Topmost in my research hierarchy has always been research aimed at uncovering a truth of nature. ... more Topmost in my research hierarchy has always been research aimed at uncovering a truth of nature. Examples of truths are Louis E. Brus model of size quantization in semiconductor particle colloids and the existence of new forms of carbon, namely the fullerenes (Harold Kroto, Robert Curl, and Richard Smalley) and nanotubes (Sumio Iijima). Because of its sheer beauty and elegance, the uncovering of truths requires no justification. If justification were, however, required, I would point out that most of the people-serving and lifeextending products, processes, and services that were introduced in my lifetime are based on truths uncovered in the past two centuries. Most, but not all, of these truths were uncovered at modest cost to taxpayers, often by individuals or small teams; only in a few fields, like particle physics and astrophysics, did important discoveries require very large groups. Review of authorship of the publications by the great scientists at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute/Fritz Haber Institute or of pioneering researchers at Bell Laboratories shows few coauthors. At Bell Laboratories, where I worked from 1963–1964 and 1975–1988, researchers were rarely assisted by more than a single associate, even after being elected to one of the US National Academies, or being awarded prestigious prizes and medals, including Nobel Prizes. It was recognized that the uncovering of truths is more often than not thought-limited rather than laborlimited; thus large teams were rarely needed. When an important observation did require a larger team, researchers of Bell Laboratories partnered with their peers instead of relying on the labor of less-qualified co-workers. At the same time, it was profoundly appreciated that creating a product, process, or service does require a large multidisciplinary team. For this reason, when 28000 people worked at Bell Laboratories, about 27 000 developed, engineered, improved on, or lowered the cost of products and services. Only about 500 researchers supported by 500 associates covered all of the physical and engineering sciences, computer and information science, mathematics, economics, and cognitive science. Their studies were rarely redundant.
The Journal of clinical ethics, 2011
Clinical ethics consultation is on the horns of a dilemma. One horn skewers the field for its lac... more Clinical ethics consultation is on the horns of a dilemma. One horn skewers the field for its lack of standards, while the other horn skewers it for proposing arbitrary or deeply contested foundations. I articulate the dilemma by discussing several critiques of the field and the challenge of formulating standards and suggest that the solution lies, at least until a robust consensus emerges, with establishing a list of proscriptive standards to guide the field.
j| lthough criticism of a powerful bureaucratic / j| body is expected, your local institutional r... more j| lthough criticism of a powerful bureaucratic / j| body is expected, your local institutional review JL board (IRB) might dese ve a touch of sympathy, having been subjected to withering critique in recent years for a long list of sins. The observed faults of IRBs have been well summarized1 and include inconsistency, delay, grammatical pedantry, excessive conservatism regarding legal risk, ignorance of fields reviewed, and threats to ac demic freedom.2 Minimal-risk rese rch is a particular area of controversy because the bureaucratic bu den of human subjects research oversight seems severely disproportional to the potential risks of harm to research participants, as well as to the effort required to condu t the research itself. Many of these complaints are legitimate, and IRB review of a researcher's proposed study can engender anger, frustration, and stress. Unfortunately, such responses can impede an accurate assessment of both the cause of the roblem and its potential soluti...
In citizen science, data stewards and data producers are often not the same people. When those wh... more In citizen science, data stewards and data producers are often not the same people. When those who have labored on data collection are not in control of the data, ethical problems could arise from this basic structural feature. In this Perspective, we advance the proposition that stewarding data sets generated by volunteers involves the typical technical decisions in conventional research plus a suite of ethical decisions stemming from the relationship between professionals and volunteers. Differences in power, priorities, values, and vulnerabilities are features of the relationship between professionals and volunteers. Thus, ethical decisions about open data practices in citizen science include, but are not limited to, questions grounded in respect for volunteers: who decides data governance structures, who receives attribution for a data set, which data are accessible and to whom, and whose interests are served by the data use/re-use. We highlight ethical issues that citizen scien...
Human subject research in the United States has historically been governed by federal regulations... more Human subject research in the United States has historically been governed by federal regulations attached to grant funding support. Through this regulatory reach, it has been possible to enforce standards of ethical treatment, built on the foundations of the Nuremberg Code, Declaration of Helsinki, and the Belmont Report, on the vast majority of research with human subjects in the United States. However, new research methods, such as citizen science, DIY biology, biohacking, and corporate research all pose challenges to the conventional approach, because they can be left ungoverned by these regulations. This requires us to think anew about how to ensure such research is conducted ethically. How can we think about ethical research in the absence of regulatorily required or universally shared norms?
This chapter outlines some of the main ethical issues in citizen science research, a new research... more This chapter outlines some of the main ethical issues in citizen science research, a new research approach that involves lay members of the public in research for which they are not necessarily professionally trained. Although some of this work is covered by existing research ethics regulations, much is not; and it is not clear how to ensure ethical citizen science research. The chapter briefly describes citizen science research, including the nature of its relationship to existing regulations. It also outlines some of the ethical issues that arise in citizen science research—some familiar, some novel—and offers “trust architecture” as a concept to guide researchers in considering how to satisfy the ethical demands of their work.
Clinical ethics consultation is on the horns of a dilemma. One horn skewers the field for its lac... more Clinical ethics consultation is on the horns of a dilemma. One horn skewers the field for its lack of standards, while the other horn skewers it for proposing arbitrary or deeply contested foundations. I articulate the dilemma by discussing several critiques of the field and the challenge of formulating standards and suggest that the solution lies, at least until a robust consensus emerges, with establishing a list of proscriptive standards to guide the field.
Philosophy and Medicine, 2015
the material is concerned, specifi cally the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustra... more the material is concerned, specifi cally the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfi lms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specifi c statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The American Journal of Bioethics
Citizen Science: Theory and Practice
So, you suspect that someone in a citizen science project committed research misconduct. What do ... more So, you suspect that someone in a citizen science project committed research misconduct. What do you do now? As citizen science methods become increasingly popular, it seems inevitable that at some point, someone identifying themselves as a citizen scientist will be accused of committing research misconduct. Yet the growth of the field also takes research increasingly outside of traditional regulatory mechanisms of identifying, investigating, and delivering consequences for research misconduct. How could we prevent or handle an allegation of scientific misconduct in citizen science that falls outside of our familiar regulatory remedies? And more broadly, what does this imply for ensuring scientific integrity in citizen science? I argue that the increasing use of new research methods in citizen science poses a challenge to traditional approaches to research misconduct, and that we should consider how to confront issues of research misconduct in citizen science. I briefly describe existing approaches to research misconduct and some aspects of citizen science giving rise to the problem, then consider alternative mechanisms, ranging from tort law to professional responsibility to a proposed "research integrity insurance," that might be deployed to address and prevent such cases.
Citizen Science: Theory and Practice
Philosophy and Medicine, 2015
Scientific Reports
F. P. Bridges 2 "Citizen science" refers to the participation of lay individuals in scientific st... more F. P. Bridges 2 "Citizen science" refers to the participation of lay individuals in scientific studies and other activities having scientific objectives. Citizen science gives rise to unique ethical issues that stem from the potentially multifaceted contributions of citizen scientists to the research process. We sought to explore the ethical issues that are most concerning to citizen scientist practitioners, participants, and scholars to support ethical practices in citizen science. We developed a best-worst scaling experiment using a balanced incomplete block design and fielded it with respondents recruited through the U.S.-based Citizen Science Association. Respondents were shown repeated subsets of 11 ethical issues and identified the most and least concerning issues in each subset. Latent class analysis revealed two respondent classes. The "Power to the People" class was most concerned about power imbalance between project leaders and participants, exploitation of participants, and lack of diverse participation. The "Show Me the Data" class was most concerned about the quality of data generated by citizen science projects and failure of projects to share data and other research outputs. "Citizen science" is an umbrella term that refers to the participation of lay individuals in scientific studies and other activities having scientific objectives 1. Participants in citizen science projects-called "citizen scientists"potentially make diverse contributions to these projects, depending on their design and objectives 2,3. Although there are examples of citizen science projects in the social sciences and humanities, they appear to be most prevalent in the natural sciences and include projects focused on, for example, human health, wildlife, ecology, and natural resources and environments 4,5. The structure and aims of each citizen science project are unique, but they share an ethos of respect for and optimism about the potential of lay individuals to contribute to scientific understanding 2,6. As citizen science approaches in research grow in popularity, attention is focusing on the ethical issues they raise 7-16. Some issues are new to research ethics and stem from the potentially multifaceted contributions of citizen scientists to the research process (e.g., the potential for projects to overburden participants with unpaid "work" or not provide appropriate attribution to participants 8,9,11,12,14). Other issues result from citizen science's challenge to current interpretations of research ethics rules and norms (e.g., the assessment of risks and benefits for participants who both act as traditional research subjects and collect, manage, or analyze data 10,11,14). Yet another class of issues encompasses known issues in research ethics that are potentially aggravated in citizen science contexts (e.g., the use or availability of data in ways inconsistent with expectations of participants and contributors 13,14). In 2017, a workshop funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) was held for the purpose of identifying ethical issues faced or created by citizen science projects, defined broadly to encompass projects relevant to any scientific field 17. Titled "Filling the 'Ethics Gap' in Citizen Science, " the interdisciplinary workshop, which was attended by almost 40 U.S.-based citizen science project leaders, participants, and scholars, resulted in a master list of over 60 ethical issues. One objective of the workshop was to begin prioritizing these issues 17. However, the