This paper makes the case for implementing an internal governance framework for sharing materials and data in stem cell research consortia. A governance framework can facilitate a transparent and accountable system while building trust among partner institutions. However, avoiding excessive bureaucracy is essential. The development and implementation of a governance framework for materials and data access in the Stem cells for Biological Assays of Novel drugs and prediCtive toxiCology (StemBANCC) consortium is presented as a practical example. The StemBANCC project is a multi-partner European research consortium, which aims to build a resource of 1,500 well characterised induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC) lines for in vitro disease modelling and toxicology studies. The project governance framework was developed in two stages. A small working group identified key components of a framework and translated the project legal agreements into a draft policy document. The second phase allowed input from all consortium partners to shape the iterative development of a final policy document that could be agreed by all parties. Careful time management strategies were needed to manage the duration of this component. This part of the process also served as an exploratory space where different options could be proposed, potential gaps in planning identified, and project co-ordination activities specified.
This book will present globally the main results and findings from the facts and figures collected by the different workpackages through the analysis of the literature, through the interviews and from the tools developed in the project. This material was enriched by the inputs from the external experts we have invited in the two conferences of consensus and from the comments of the various stakeholders. The chapters are based on the same presentation and are divided in two parts: a report and some recommendations either to the Commission or to stakeholders.
The concept of human technological enhancement originated as a tool for the moral classification of technologies, but has since spilled over from ethical debates to become a site for prospective technology development as part of a ‘converging technologies’ agenda. To date, enhancement and the technologies labelled as ‘enhancing’ have been underserved by STS research. While case studies do exist, there has been a dearth of co-ordinated investigation. This paper proposes a systemic programme for STS research on enhancement technologies based on five key challenges posed by dominant conceptions of enhancement as a way of understanding technological development. After setting out this agenda, a short history of the enhancement debate is provided to illustrate the changing meanings of ‘enhancement’ across different contexts. Recognising the limitations of critique alone, particular emphasis is given to the possibilities for productive engagement by STS scholars with the domain of enhancement across its multiple manifestations.
Graduation outcomes are analyzed at public and private baccalaureate colleges and universities in the United States. The purpose is to determine the effect of institutional characteristics on a binary indicator of college graduation. The effect of the percentage of Pell grant recipients on graduation outcomes is of primary interest, controlling for other covariates. Institutional characteristics have a major effect on college graduation outcomes. Key institutional variables that appear to have the largest effect on graduation outcomes include percent Pell recipients, private college status, and institutional average SAT scores. College size and expenditures per FTE student have a direct but more moderate relationship to graduation outcomes. Implications for baccalaureate education are discussed.
Abstract Responsible Research and Innovation (‘RRI’) is a cross-cutting priority for scientific research in the European Union and beyond. This paper considers whether the way such research is organised and delivered lends itself to the aims of RRI. We focus particularly on international consortia, which have emerged as a common model to organise large-scale, multi-disciplinary research in contemporary biomedical science. Typically, these consortia operate through fixed-term contracts, and employ governance frameworks consisting of reasonably standard, modular components such as management committees, advisory boards, and data access committees, to co-ordinate the activities of partner institutions and align them with funding agency priorities. These have advantages for organisation and management of the research, but can actively inhibit researchers seeking to implement RRI activities. Conventional consortia governance structures pose specific problems for meaningful public and participant involvement, data sharing, transparency, and ‘legacy’ planning to deal with societal commitments that persist beyond the duration of the original project. In particular, the ‘upstream’ negotiation of contractual terms between funders and the institutions employing researchers can undermine the ability for those researchers to subsequently make decisions about data, or participant remuneration, or indeed what happens to consortia outputs after the project is finished, and can inhibit attempts to make project activities and goals responsive to input from ongoing dialogue with various stakeholders. Having explored these challenges, we make some recommendations for alternative consortia governance structures to better support RRI in future.