TECHNO-SCIENCE AND THE SCIENTIFIC ETHOS: THE OUTLINES OF ETHICS OF BIOBANKING THROUGH THE EYES OF THE RUSSIAN SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY (BASED ON A SURVEY OF SPECIALISTS IN THE FIELD OF BIOMEDICINE AND RELATED RESEARCH ACTIVITIES)
DOI: 10.23951/2312-7899-2018-4-61-83
The paper proceeds from the visualization of the positions of scientists working in the field of high-tech biomedicine, and considers the transformations of science and scientific ethos basing on the example of biobanking development. It poses a question of a brand new social character of scientific practices generated by advanced technologies. Being in the process of technification and economic objectification, drastically changing, science is settling in the system of social practices from which it used to be absolutely separated before. In this respect, the paper addresses to biobanking as an example of a techno-scientific object that is gradually obtaining the status of the key component of biomedicine infrastructure and paramedical sciences development. The paper describes the special status of biobanks dealing with human biomaterials and having both biotechnological and biopolitical capacities that trigger an enormous controversy concerning ethical grounds for regulating biobanks as a techno-scientific branch and an emerging social institution. In this context, the paper focuses on the problem of responsibility of the biobank and related projects dealing with using human biomaterials and structuring relations with donors in the process of functioning. The paper emphasizes that the essential novelty of biobanks consists in their techno-scientific status combining social, technological and scientific components, and it naturally spreads upon the scientist’s ethos that cannot be called “classic” any more. So, the paper suggests paying special attention to the problem of the scientist’s responsibility and revision of the science ethos. Basing on the results of the survey conducted among the representatives of Russian biobanking (scientists, whose activities are linked to biobanking, developers and/or users of biobanks in research projects), the paper demonstrates some preliminary data showing the peculiarities of transformations of this kind. Designed by the authors of the paper in terms of the Lomonosov Moscow State University biobank project called “Noah’s Ark” (The National Depository Bank of Living Systems), the survey included both inquiry forms and feedback options that contributed to getting the most relevant answers from the respondents. As a result, the paper shows typical and non-typical attitudes representing the respondent audience views. Considering the survey, the paper concentrates on revealing the professional community attitude towards both the current status and perspectives of biobanking development in Russia. The qualitative research represented in the paper focuses on possible aims, top targets, usage potential, management issues, social risks and ethical regulations of biobanking.
Keywords: scientific ethos, status of scientist, ethics of scientific research, techno-science, biobank, biobanking, sociology of science
References:
Balanovskaya, E.V., Zhabagin, M.K., Agdzhoyan, A.T., Chukhryaeva, M.I. et al. (2016) Population Biobanks: Organizational Models and Prospects of Application in Gene Geography and Personalized Medicine. Genetika – Russian Journal of Genetics. 52(12). pp. 1371–1387. (In Russian).
Bryzgalina, E.V., Gavrilenko, S.M., Varkhotov, T.A., Alasaniya, K.Yu. et al. (2018) The specifics of the informed consent of the donors of biomaterials. Tekhnologii zhivykh system – Technologies of Living Systems. 15(2). pp. 4–15. (In Russian).
Varkhotov, T.A., Gavrilenko, S.M., Stambolskiy, D.V., Ogorodova, L.M. et al. (2016) The Objectives of Social and Humanitarian Support to the Establishment of the National Depository Bank of Biomaterials in Russia. Voprosy filosofii. 3. pp. 124–138. (In Russian).
Koshovets, O.B. (2008) Ekspert i vosproizvodstvo nauchnogo znaniya [Expert and reproduction of scientific knowledge]. In: Ananin, O.I. (ed.) Ekonomika kak iskusstvo: metodologicheskie voprosy primeneniya ekonomicheskoy teorii v prikladnykh sotsial’no-ekonomicheskikh issledovaniyakh [Economics as an Art: Methodological Issues of the Application of Economic Theory in Applied Social and Economic Research]. Moscow: Nauka. p. 210–249.
Latour, B. (2013) Nauka v deystvii: sleduya za uchenymi i inzhenerami vnutri obshchestva [Science in action. How to follow scientists and engineers through society]. Translated from English by K. Fedorova. St. Petersburg: European University.
Merton, R. (2006) Sotsial’naya teoriya i sotsial’naya struktura [Social Theory and Social Structure]. Translated from English by E. Egorova, Z. Kaganova, V. Nikolaev, E. Cheremissinova. Moscow: Khranitel’.
Nefedova, A.I. & Fursov, K.S. (2016) Obshchestvennoe mnenie o razvitii nauki i tekhnologiy [Public opinion on the development of science and technology]. Moscow: HSE.
Bryzgalina, E., Alasania, K., Varkhotov, T. Gavrilenko, S. et al. (2017) The social dimension of biobanking: objectives and challenges. Life Sciences, Society and Policy. 13(1). pp. 15. DOI: 10.1186/s40504-017-0059-5
Dorey, C.M., Baumann, H. & Biller-Andorno, N. (2018) Patient data and patient rights: Swiss healthcare stakeholders’ ethical awareness regarding large patient data sets – a qualitative study. BMC Medical Ethics. 19:20. DOI: 10.1186/s12910-018-0261-x
Kadri, S. (2011) The Concepts of Common Good and Public Interest: From Plato to Biobanking. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics. 20. pp. 554–562. DOI: 10.1017/S0963180111000296
Karlsen, J.R., Solbakk, J.H. & Holm, S. (2014) Ethical Endgames: Broad Consent for Narrow Interests; Open Consent for Closed Minds. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics. 20/4. pp. 572–583. DOI: 10.1017/S0963180111000314
Master, Z., Campo-Engelstein, L. & Caulfield, T. (2015) Scientists’ perspectives on consent in the context of biobanking research. European Journal of Human Genetics. 23. pp. 569–574. DOI: 10.1038/ejhg.2014.143
Meulenkamp, T., Gevers, S., Bovenberg, J. & Smets, E. (2012) Researchers’ opinions towards the communication of results of biobank research: a survey study. European Journal of Human Genetics. 20. pp. 258–262. DOI: 10.1038/ejhg.2011.216
Moodley, K. & Singh, S. (2016) “It’s all about trust”: reflections of researchers on the complexity and controversy surrounding biobanking in South Africa. BMC Medical Ethics. 17(57). DOI: 10.1186/s12910-016-0140-2
Oppenheimer, R.J. (1989) Atom and Void. Essays on Science and Community. Princeton University Press.
Rivera, S.M., Goldenberg, A., Rosenthal, B., Aungst, H., Maschke, K.J., Rothwell, E., Anderson, R.A., Botkin, J. & Joffe, S. (2015) Investigator Experiences and Attitudes About Research With Biospecimens. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics. 10(5). pp. 449–456. DOI: 10.1177/1556264615610199
Zawati, M.H., Tasse, A.M., Mendy, M., Caboux, E. & Lang, M. (2018) Barriers and Opportunities in Consent and Access Procedures in Low- and Middle-Income Country Biobanks: Meeting Notes from the BCNet Training and General Assembly. Biopreservation and Biobanking. 16(3). pp. 171–178. DOI: 10.1089/bio.2017.0081
( 385.94 kB ) 
( 371.45 kB )
Issue: 4, 2018
Series of issue: Issue 4
Rubric: ARTICLES
Pages: 61 — 83
Downloads: 1302