Search for: All records

Not AvaiAs cryopreservation technologies continue to develop, the need for harmonized terminology across the multitude of disciplines where cryopreservation is applied is becoming increasingly acute. Terminology in cryopreservation remains inconsistent, leading to confusion and barriers to progress. Applications of cryopreservation in medicine, food, agriculture, and conservation remain limited by this lack of consensus. Inconsistent terminology contributes to ethical, legal, and societal issues in translating and integrating new cryopreservation technologies. Here we identify the problem with examples of cryopreservation terminology that demand harmonization. We describe the need for terminological consistency by providing examples of effective terminology harmonization projects in related fields. We propose next steps, highlighting the important role that professional societies should play to reach consensus on terminology among cryopreservation stakeholders and the broader cryobiology community.lable 

Vigorous debate has erupted over the trustworthiness of scientific research findings in a number of domains. The question “what makes research findings trustworthy?” elicits different answers depending on whether the emphasis is on research integrity and ethics, research methods, transparency, inclusion, assessment and peer review, or scholarly communication. Each provides partial insight. We offer a systems approach that focuses on whether the research is accountable, evaluable, well-formulated, has been evaluated, controls for bias, reduces error, and whether the claims are warranted by the evidence. We tie each of these components to measurable indicators of trustworthiness for evaluating the research itself, the researchers conducting the research, and the organizations supporting the research. Our goals are to offer a framework that can be applied across methods, approaches, and disciplines and to foster innovation in development of trustworthiness indicators. Developing valid indicators will improve the conduct and assessment of research and, ultimately, public understanding and trust. 

The NetEthics Educational Case Study Collection was developed as part of a project funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) on "NetEthics: Building Tools & Training to Advance Responsible Conduct in Complex Research Networks Pioneering Novel technologies"(NSF award 2220611). This project has focused on the ethical challenges arising in large, multi-institutional, and frequently multidisciplinary research networks such as NSF-funded Engineering Research Centers (ERCs). This project developed educational case studies that research networks could use and adapt to foster consideration and understanding of key ethical issues arising in these networks. The case study collection aims to strengthen ethical reflection and responsible conduct of research (RCR) in these large and complex research networks. Such networks face unique ethical challenges that are not well addressed by traditional ethics frameworks, which tend to focus on either individual researcher responsibilities or broad societal impacts. The project team developed four educational case studies to support ethics and RCR at the network level. These case studies are fictional but address critical issues in collaborative research networks: (1) data sharing across the network, (2) credit and authorship in multi-team publications, (3) navigating ethics and regulatory frameworks, and (4) fostering effective collaboration within the network. We developed these cases by using analytic and empirical methods to identify key issues in network research. We then piloted a subset of cases in workshops with ERC participants, leading to refinements in all four cases. The cases are designed to be used easily – each case is succinct but can support rich discussion and reflection in a discussion session of an hour or more, either in person or virtually (e.g., through Zoom). These case studies aim to encourage discussion of ethical issues in network research, providing a tool that network participants and leaders can use to advance a culture and climate committed to ethical and responsible research. 

Scientific research increasingly involves large, multidisciplinary teams networked across multiple institutions to develop new technologies. Despite the rise of complex research networks and big team science, there has been little analysis to date of the ethical challenges facing these networks. The extensive literature on the ethical issues confronting individual researchers and small teams (the micro level) and on the larger societal challenges flowing from research and new technology (the macro level) leave a troubling gap in between, at the meso level of the research network involved in big team science. Yet the ability of complex networks to conduct research ethically – which is essential if the results are to be deemed reliable and trustworthy – depends on recognizing the ethical issues that emerge at this intermediate network level, identifying the values that should guide networks in addressing those issues, and equipping research leaders to build a culture supporting the ethical conduct of research across the laboratories and institutions that comprise the network. This paper calls out the problem, analyzing the gap and recommending next steps. 

Background: Despite the rise of big-team science and multiinstitutional, multidisciplinary research networks, little research has explored the unique challenges that large, distributed research networks face in ensuring the ethical and responsible conduct of research (RCR) at the network level. Methods: This qualitative case study explored the views of the scientists, engineers, clinicians, and trainees within a large Engineering Research Center (ERC) on ethical and RCR issues arising at the network level. Results: Semi-structured interviews of 26 ERC members were analyzed and revealed five major themes: (1) data sharing, (2) authorship or inventorship credit, (3) ethics and regulation, (4) collaboration, and (5) network leadership, norms, and policy. Interviews revealed cross-laboratory differences and disciplinary differences as sources of challenge. Conclusions: This study illuminates ethical challenges that a large, multi-institutional research network is likely to face. Research collaboration across disciplines, laboratories, and institutions invites conflict over norms and practices. Network leadership requires anticipating, monitoring, and addressing the ethical challenges in order to ensure the network’s ethical and responsible conduct of research and optimize research collaboration. Studying perceived ethical issues that arise at the meso-level of a research network is essential for understanding how to advance network ethics. 

Advanced cryopreservation technologies have the potential to transform organ transplants, biomedical research, food storage, aquaculture, biodiversity repositories, ecological restoration, and numerous other applications. These surpass the capability of existing cryopreservation technologies to extend the life and viability of biological materials at various scales from cells to tissues, organs, and entire organisms. In this article, we demonstrate why innovations in advanced cryopreservation, which we analyze as emergent, convergent platform technologies, raise novel concerns for research ethics and coordination, governance, and equitable access to benefits. As emerging technologies, they may disrupt markets or destabilize social institutions, including the systems that govern the distribution of organs for transplant. As convergent technologies, their impact will be heightened through interaction with other technologies. The technologies that may intensify the social and ethical effects of advanced cryopreservation include information technologies that permit the administration of complex logistics of storage and transport, biotechnologies for the management of floral and faunal species and populations, and 3D printing technologies that may enable the development and distribution of customizable peripheral components of this platform technology. The speed of development among diverse applications of the core platform is likely to vary between sectors in ways that are responsive to public support as well as to ethical constraints, and advancements in any sector will affect the achievement of reliability for the core technology across sectors. We recommend that societal benefits and risks be assessed both in the specific contexts for which peripheral components are developed and for the core technology.