Tag: technical expertise

Bioethics Blogs

Special Issues! The Publics of Public Health in Africa | Anthropological Interrogations of Evidence-Based Global Health by Anna Zogas

I’d like to highlight a pair of Special Sections in the early 2017 issues of Critical Public Health. The first is “The Publics of Public Health in Africa,” guest edited by Ann H. Kelly, Hayley MacGregor, and Catherine M. Montgomery. The second is “Anthropological Interrogations of Evidence-Based Global Health,” guest edited by Elsa L. Fan and Elanah Uretsky. Here are the abstracts for the articles in both sections!

 

The Publics of Public Health in Africa 

The publics of public health in Africa (open access)
Ann H. Kelly, Hayley MacGregor & Catherine M. Montgomery

Excerpt: How do we understand the public character of public health in contemporary Africa? What are the parameters of community engagement in health care delivery, medical research and disease control programmes? To what extent is public health in Africa a project led by African Governments? Through what political processes and deliberative practices can African publics influence the priorities of research in health sciences and interventions which aim in broad terms to improve the health of such publics? Drawing insight from empirical research conducted with African scientists, nurses, community members, clinical trialists and policy-makers, this special section examines the multiple ways in which the publiccomes into being around public health provisioning and investigation in sub-Saharan Africa, its role and political reach. Collectively, these papers show how contestation and negotiation around different ideas about who the public is and what being public means can lead to the emergence of conflicting understandings, with implications for who and what is seen to represent the public interest, and for the acceptance of research and other interventions.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Bioethics News

Medical Device Employees Are Often in the O.R., Raising Concerns About Influence

November 15, 2016

(Kaiser Health News) – They are a little-known presence in many operating rooms, offering technical expertise to surgeons installing new knees, implanting cardiac defibrillators or performing delicate spine surgery. Often called device reps — or by the more cumbersome and less transparent moniker “health-care industry representatives” — these salespeople are employed by the companies that make medical devices: Stryker, Johnson & Johnson and Medtronic, to name a few. Their presence in the OR, particularly common in orthopedics and neurosurgery, is part of the equipment packages that hospitals typically buy.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Bioethics Blogs

Stopping or Selling Human Germline Modification?

One failed experiment can crystallize a discussion. On April 18, a paper describing an attempt to use CRISPR gene-editing technology to modify a human embryo was published in Protein & Cell, an obscure Chinese journal. On April 22, Nature, which had rejected the paper on ethical grounds, published a news article about the publication, which was the first many people had heard of it. And then pretty much everyone in the biotech/bioethics world had something to say.

The pump had been primed by recent commentaries in Nature and Science that called, with significantly different emphasis, for a moratorium on human germline interventions. An earlier widely circulated article in MIT Technology Review had suggested such experiments were soon to be published.

Creating genetically modified humans has long been seen as dangerously unacceptable, and is prohibited by law in dozens of countries. Until the recent advent of new gene-editing tools, scientists had also refrained from human germline experiments.

The Center for Genetics and Society’s reasons for supporting these prohibitions are described in these press releases (1, 2) and this backgrounder. In short, CGS supports the prospect of somatic gene therapy, which if successful would help consenting patients by treating disease but would not affect their descendants; and opposes inheritable genetic modification (or germline intervention) for multiple reasons, including dire safety risks, ethical considerations and social consequences.

Most responses to the prospects of GM humans can be roughly grouped into a few categories, each of which covers a spectrum of views: opposition, either permanent or conditional; calls for dialog, with varying implications; and support, even enthusiasm. Views also vary on whether, when and under what conditions it would be appropriate or acceptable to modify the genes of human embryos for research purposes.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.