Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Commentary: what "community review" can and cannot do.

E T Juengst1

  • 1Center for Biomedical Ethics, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, USA.

The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics : a Journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics
|November 7, 2000
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

I-DNA-fication, personal privacy, and social justice.

Chicago-Kent law review·2005
Same author

Genetic enhancement.

Medical ethics (Burlington, Mass.)·2004
Same author

Gene-poor vermin: humanity's new place in nature.

The Hastings Center report·2001
Same author

Group identity and human diversity: keeping biology straight from culture.

American journal of human genetics·1998
Same author

Can enhancement be distinguished from prevention in genetic medicine?

The Journal of medicine and philosophy·1997
Same author

The clinical introduction of genetic testing for Alzheimer disease. An ethical perspective.

JAMA·1997

This research suggests shifting from defining "community" to enabling community construction. Empowering individuals to create their own communities benefits both researchers and participants in community review.

Area of Science:

  • Social Sciences
  • Research Ethics
  • Community Studies

Background:

  • The concept of "community review" in research is complex and debated.
  • Existing frameworks for defining community in research lack consensus.

Discussion:

  • Sharp and Foster's work on differentiating forms of "community review" is acknowledged.
  • The author proposes a paradigm shift in understanding community within research contexts.

Key Insights:

  • Defining "community" by fixed criteria may be less effective than fostering its creation.
  • A proactive approach of "community construction" offers benefits over reactive "community review".

Outlook:

  • Future research should explore methods for facilitating "community construction" in diverse settings.
Keywords:
Biomedical and Behavioral ResearchGenetics and Reproduction

Related Experiment Videos

  • This approach could enhance participant engagement and research relevance.