↓ Skip to main content

Taking tissue seriously means taking communities seriously

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Ethics, October 2007
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
70 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Taking tissue seriously means taking communities seriously
Published in
BMC Medical Ethics, October 2007
DOI 10.1186/1472-6939-8-11
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ross EG Upshur, James V Lavery, Paulina O Tindana

Abstract

Health research is increasingly being conducted on a global scale, particularly in the developing world to address leading causes of morbidity and mortality. While research interest has increased, building scientific capacity in the developing world has not kept pace. This often leads to the export of human tissue (defined broadly) from the developing to the developed world for analysis. These practices raise a number of important ethical issues that require attention. In the developed world, there is great heterogeneity of regulatory practices regarding human tissues. In this paper, we outline the salient ethical issues raised by tissue exportation, review the current ethical guidelines and norms, review the literature on what is known empirically about perceptions and practices with respect to tissue exportation from the developing to the developed world, set out what needs to be known in terms of a research agenda, and outline what needs to be done immediately in terms of setting best practices. We argue that the current status of tissue exportation is ambiguous and requires clarification lest problems that have plagued the developed world occur in the context of global heath research with attendant worsening of inequities. Central to solutions to current ethical concerns entail moving beyond concern with individual level consent and embracing a robust interaction with communities engaged in research. Greater attention to community engagement is required to understand the diverse issues associated with tissue exportation.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Indonesia 1 1%
Spain 1 1%
Switzerland 1 1%
Unknown 67 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 20%
Researcher 14 20%
Student > Bachelor 11 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 9%
Other 14 20%
Unknown 4 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 23%
Social Sciences 16 23%
Philosophy 7 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 7%
Other 15 21%
Unknown 5 7%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 01 January 2014.
All research outputs
#2,033,598
of 8,079,488 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#204
of 396 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#70,735
of 241,348 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#11
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,079,488 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 61st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 396 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 241,348 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.