| Title |
Giving voice to African thought in medical research ethics
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, March 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11017-017-9402-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Godfrey B. Tangwa |
| Abstract |
In this article, I consider the virtual absence of an African voice and perspective in global discourses of medical research ethics against the backdrop of the high burden of diseases and epidemics on the continent and the fact that the continent is actually the scene of numerous and sundry medical research studies. I consider some reasons for this state of affairs as well as how the situation might be redressed. Using examples from the HIV/AIDS and Ebola epidemics, I attempt to show that the marginalization of Africa in medical research and medical research ethics is deliberate rather than accidental. It is causally related, in general terms, to a Eurocentric hegemony derived from colonialism and colonial indoctrination cum proselytization. I end by proposing seven theses for the critical reflection and appraisal of the reader. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 23% |
| Netherlands | 2 | 15% |
| Uganda | 1 | 8% |
| Cameroon | 1 | 8% |
| Kenya | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 5 | 38% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 12 | 92% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 36 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unspecified | 5 | 14% |
| Researcher | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 8% |
| Professor | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 6 | 17% |
| Unknown | 13 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 17% |
| Unspecified | 5 | 14% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 8% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 5 | 14% |
| Unknown | 12 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 June 2018.
All research outputs
#4,096,781
of 25,342,911 outputs
Outputs from Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics
#52
of 324 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,877
of 315,583 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics
#2
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,342,911 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 324 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 315,583 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.