Conducting community-based research in the community where one resides demands careful planning, sensitivity to community members’ privacy, and a strong commitment to full and respectful communication.
By failing to follow informed consent protocols and regulations, a researcher engaging in CBPR may inflict permanent harm on the participating community and chill future research among disadvantaged populations.
The differences between CBPR and traditional research have been enumerated, but how to overcome them is still up for discussion, collaboration with community members is advocated, and examples are given.
PSOs are not required to share their data, which limits the ability to achieve a much-needed national perspective. Regardless, the are a step in the right direction.
CBP researchers are challenged to think strategically about ways to convey their accomplishments and educate their non-CBPR peers about the nature of their research, processes not required of traditional researchers.
Elizabeth Lee Daugherty, MD, MPH and Douglas B. White, MD, MA
Opportunities to advance scientific knowledge may arise during humanitarian crises, but their presence does not justify suspension of the ethical foundations governing human subjects research.
Research is needed to understand mental health effects of cancer at diagnosis, throughout treatment and the post-treatment phases, and in survivorship.
AMA J Ethics. 2017;19(5):486-492. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.5.msoc2-1705.
Tom Alsaigh, MD, Laura Nicholson, MD, PhD, and Eric Topol, MD
Clinicians should have a working understanding of gene editing, controversy surrounding its use, and its far-reaching clinical and ethical implications.
AMA J Ethics. 2019;21(12):E1089-1097. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2019.1089.