You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
| Title |
Expanding Ethics Review Processes to Include Community-Level Protections: A Case Study from Flint, Michigan
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
AMA Journal of Ethics, October 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.10.ecas3-1710 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Abstract |
As the Flint community endeavors to recover and move forward in the aftermath of the Flint water crisis, distrust of scientific and governmental authorities must be overcome. Future community engagement in research will require community-level protections ensuring that no further harm is done to the community. A community ethics review explores risks and benefits and complements institutional review board (IRB) review. Using the case of Flint, I describe how community-level ethical protections can reestablish a community's trust. All IRBs reviewing protocols that include risk to communities and not merely individual participants should consider how community members are engaged in the proposed research and identify and respond to questions and domains of concern from community members. |
Twitter Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 24 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 21% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 8% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 8 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 25% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 17% |
| Environmental Science | 2 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 8% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 8 | 33% |