Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Dec;54 Suppl 2(Suppl 2):S66-S72.
doi: 10.1002/hast.4931.

Accountability for Reasonableness as a Framework for the Promotion of Fair and Equitable Research

Accountability for Reasonableness as a Framework for the Promotion of Fair and Equitable Research

Charles Dupras et al. Hastings Cent Rep. 2024 Dec.

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

References

    1. Fatumo S. et al., “A Roadmap to Increase Diversity in Genomic Studies,” Nature Medicine 28, no. 2 (2022): 243–50. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Abascal M., Xu J., and Baldassarri D., “People Use Both Heterogeneity and Minority Representation to Evaluate Diversity,” Science Advances 7, no. 11 (2021): doi:10.1126/sciadv.abf2507. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Scharff D. P. et al., “More than Tuskegee: Understanding Mistrust about Research Participation,” Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved 21, no. 3 (2010): 879–97. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ben‐Eghan C. et al., “Don't Ignore Genetic Data from Minority Populations,” Nature 585 (2020): 184–46. - PubMed
    1. 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

LinkOut - more resources