Accountability for Reasonableness as a Framework for the Promotion of Fair and Equitable Research
- PMID: 39707939
- PMCID: PMC11662771
- DOI: 10.1002/hast.4931
Accountability for Reasonableness as a Framework for the Promotion of Fair and Equitable Research
Abstract
Despite increased efforts to ensure diversity in genomic research, the exclusion of minority groups from data analyses and publications remains a critical issue. This paper addresses the ethical implications of these exclusions and proposes accountability for reasonableness (A4R) as a framework to promote fairness and equity in research. Originally conceived by Norman Daniels and James Sabin to guide resource allocation in the context of health policy, A4R emphasizes publicity, relevance of reasons, enforcement, and revision as essential for legitimacy and trust in the decision-making process. The authors argue that A4R is also relevant to resource allocation in research and that, if adequately informed and incentivized by funding agencies, institutional review boards, and scientific journals, researchers are well-positioned to assess data-selection justifications. The A4R framework provides a promising foundation for fostering accountability in genomics and other fields, including artificial intelligence, where lack of diversity and pervasive biases threaten equitable benefit sharing.
Keywords: A4R; accountability for reasonableness; diversity; equity and fairness; exclusion; genomic research; procedural justice; research ethics.
© 2024 The Author(s). Hastings Center Report published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of The Hastings Center.
Similar articles
-
Conceptualizations of fairness and legitimacy in the context of Ethiopian health priority setting: Reflections on the applicability of accountability for reasonableness.Dev World Bioeth. 2018 Dec;18(4):357-364. doi: 10.1111/dewb.12153. Epub 2017 May 22. Dev World Bioeth. 2018. PMID: 28544136
-
What do hospital decision-makers in Ontario, Canada, have to say about the fairness of priority setting in their institutions?BMC Health Serv Res. 2005 Jan 21;5(1):8. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-5-8. BMC Health Serv Res. 2005. PMID: 15663792 Free PMC article.
-
Beyond the Black Box Approach to Ethics! Comment on "Expanded HTA: Enhancing Fairness and Legitimacy".Int J Health Policy Manag. 2016 Apr 20;5(6):393-4. doi: 10.15171/ijhpm.2016.43. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2016. PMID: 27285520 Free PMC article.
-
Criteria for the procedural fairness of health financing decisions: a scoping review.Health Policy Plan. 2023 Nov 14;38(Supplement_1):i13-i35. doi: 10.1093/heapol/czad066. Health Policy Plan. 2023. PMID: 37963078 Free PMC article.
-
The use of cost-effectiveness by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE): no(t yet an) exemplar of a deliberative process.J Med Ethics. 2008 Jul;34(7):534-9. doi: 10.1136/jme.2007.021683. J Med Ethics. 2008. PMID: 18591289 Review.
References
-
- Ben‐Eghan C. et al., “Don't Ignore Genetic Data from Minority Populations,” Nature 585 (2020): 184–46. - PubMed
-
- Weissglass D. E., “Contextual Bias, the Democratization of Healthcare, and Medical Artificial Intelligence in Low‐ and Middle‐Income Countries,” Bioethics 36, no. 2 (2022): 201–9. - PubMed
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources