Sarah Chan’s research while affiliated with University of Edinburgh and other places

This article examines the influence of social media posts on clinical trials involving stem cell-based interventions. Based on the literature review, we identified three potential risks associated with social media posts regarding clinical trials that involve stem cell-based interventions: (1) threats to scientific validity, (2) amplification of excessive expectations, and (3) breaches of confidentiality. Additionally, preliminary recommendations are provided to safeguard the value of stem cell clinical trials for future patients in the age of social media. Our approach aims to safeguard the well-being of forthcoming participants and ensure the scientific validity of stem cell research, as well as possibly aid in the further development of shared guidelines for posting stem cell clinical trial information on social media platforms.

Engagement with publics, patients, and stakeholders is an important part of the health research environment today,and different modalities of ‘engaged’ health research have proliferated in recent years. Yet, th ere is no consensus on what, exactly, ‘engaging’ means, what it should look like, and what the aims, justifications, or motivations for it should be. In this paper, we set out what we see as important, outstanding challenges around the practice and theory of engaging and consider the tensions and possibilities that the diverse landscape of engaging evokes. We examine the roots, present modalities and institutional frameworks that have been erected around engaging, including how they shape and delimit how engagements are framed, enacted, and justified. We inspect the related issue of knowledge production within and through engagements, addressing whether engagements can, or should, be framed as knowledge producing activities. We then unpack the question of how engagements are or could be valued and evaluated, emphasising the plural ways in which ‘value’ can be conceptualised and generated. We conclude by calling for a philosophy of engagements that can capture the diversity of related practices, concepts and justifications around engagements, and account for the plurality of knowledges and value that engagements engender, while remaining flexible and attentive to the structural conditions under which engagements occur. Such philosophy should be a feminist one, informed by feminist epistemological and methodological approaches to equitable modes of research participation, knowledge production, and valuing. Especially, translating feminist tools of reflexivity and positionalityinto the sphere of engagements can enable a synergy of empirical, epistemic and normative considerations in developing accounts of engaging in both theory and praxis. Modestly, here, we hope to carve out the starting points for this work.

Engagement with publics, patients, and stakeholders is an important part of the health research environment in the UK and beyond today, and different ‘engaged’ health research modalities have proliferated in recent years. Yet, the conceptual landscape currently surrounding engagement is contested. There is no consensus on what, exactly, ‘engaging’ means, what it should look like, and what the aims, justifications, or motivations for it should be. In this paper, we set out what we see as important, outstanding challenges around the practice and theory of engaging and consider the tensions and possibilities that the diverse landscape of engaging evokes. We examine the roots, present modalities and institutional frameworks that have been erected around engaging, including how they shape and delimit how engagements are framed, enacted, and justified. We inspect the related issue of knowledge production within and through engagements, addressing whether engagements can, or should, be framed as knowledge producing activities. We then unpack the question of how engagements are or could be valued and evaluated, emphasising the plural ways in which ‘value’ can be conceptualised and generated. We conclude by calling for a philosophy of engagements that can capture the diversity of related practices, concepts and justifications around engagements, and account for the plurality of knowledges and kinds of value that engagements engender, while remaining flexible and attentive to the structural conditions under which engagements occur. Such philosophy should be a feminist one, informed by feminist epistemological and methodological approaches to equitable modes of research participation, knowledge production, and valuing. This will enable a synergy of empirical, epistemic, and normative considerations in developing accounts of engaging in both theory and praxis. Modestly, here, we hope to carve out the starting points for this work.

Population-level biomedical research offers new opportunities to improve population health, but also raises new challenges to traditional systems of research governance and ethical oversight. Partly in response to these challenges, various models of public involvement in research are being introduced. Yet, the ways in which public involvement should meet governance challenges are not well understood. We conducted a qualitative study with 36 experts and stakeholders using the World Café method to identify key governance challenges and explore how public involvement can meet these challenges. This brief report discusses four cross-cutting themes from the study: the need to move beyond individual consent; issues in benefit and data sharing; the challenge of delineating and understanding publics; and the goal of clarifying justifications for public involvement. The report aims to provide a starting point for making sense of the relationship between public involvement and the governance of population-level biomedical research, showing connections, potential solutions and issues arising at their intersection. We suggest that, in population-level biomedical research, there is a pressing need for a shift away from conventional governance frameworks focused on the individual and towards a focus on collectives, as well as to foreground ethical issues around social justice and develop ways to address cultural diversity, value pluralism and competing stakeholder interests. There are many unresolved questions around how this shift could be realised, but these unresolved questions should form the basis for developing justificatory accounts and frameworks for suitable collective models of public involvement in population-level biomedical research governance.

Human germline genetic modification has long been a controversial topic. Until recently it remained largely a hypothetical debate: whether one accepted or opposed the idea in principle, it was not only too risky but impractical to execute in reality. With the advent of genome editing technologies, however, heritable modifications to the human genome became a much more concrete possibility; nonetheless, the consensus has to date remained that human heritable genome editing is not yet safe enough for clinical application. The announcement of the birth of two genome-edited babies in late 2018, therefore, was condemned almost universally as premature, irresponsible, and dangerous. But what does responsibility require, and from whom? How should risk and precaution be balanced in assessing heritable genome editing, and against what alternatives? This paper reexamines commonly held assumptions about risk and responsibility with respect to human genome editing and argues that the precautionary approach that has so far been favored is not well justified, that the risks of heritable versus somatic genome editing should be reassessed, and that a fuller account of responsibility-scientific, social, and global-is required for the ethical governance of genome editing.

Stem cell research has attracted much public and biomedical anticipation centred on the possibility of using stem cells to treat various diseases and conditions, but the number of evidence-based therapies is currently limited. Numerous commercial direct-to-consumer (DTC) businesses are nonetheless marketing experimental stem cell therapies online for myriad medical conditions and aesthetic ailments, which has attracted critique due to safety and efficacy concerns. Existing research has largely focused on the problem of unproven therapies and regulatory pathways for addressing it. The proliferation of these experimental products must also be examined, however, in the broader socio-technological context of consumer culture and changing practices of knowledge-making in the digital era. DTC stem cell therapies have emerged as a new biomedical ‘lifestyle’ product that blurs the boundaries between ‘science,’ ‘medicine,’ and ‘consumer culture.’ In using, conceptualising and marketing stem cells, commercial businesses build on and commercially co-opt alternative epistemic and ontological frames that challenge scientific medicine. They advance promissory narratives about their potential that tap on cultural aspirations around the future of medicine and health. This is key, not only for understanding how and why these therapies have proliferated but also in conceptualising what the ‘problem’ around them actually is.

In recent years, discourses around “personalized,” “stratified,” and “precision” medicine have proliferated. These concepts broadly refer to the translational potential carried by new data-intensive biomedical research modes. Each describes expectations about the future of medicine and healthcare that data-intensive innovation promises to bring forth. The definitions and uses of the concepts are, however, plural, contested and characterized by diverse ideas about the kinds of futures that are desired and desirable. In this paper, we unpack key disputes around the “personalized,” “stratified,” and “precision” terms, and map the epistemic, political and economic contexts that structure them as well as the different roles attributed to patients and citizens in competing future imaginaries. We show the ethical and value baggage embedded within the promises that are manufactured through terminological choices and argue that the context and future-oriented nature of these choices helps to understanding how data-intensive biomedical innovations are made socially meaningful.

The ‘digital era’ of informatics and knowledge integration has changed the roles and experiences of patients, research participants and health consumers. No longer figured (merely) as passive recipients of healthcare services or as beneficiaries of top-down biomedical information, individuals are increasingly seen as active contributors in healthcare and research. They are positioned into multiple roles that are experienced simultaneously by those who access and co-produce digital content that can easily be transformed into data. This is contextualised by ‘big data’ technologies that have altered biomedicine, enabling collation and analysis of myriad data from digitised records to personal mobile data. Social media facilitate new formations of communities and knowledge enacted online, while novel kinds of commercial value emerge from digital networks that enable health data commodification. In this paper, we draw from exemplary digital era shifts towards participatory medicine to cast light on the rapprochements between patienthood, participation and consumption, and we explore how these rapprochements are mediated by, and materialise through, the use of participatory digital technologies and big data. We argue that there is a need to use new conceptual tools that account for the multiple roles and experiences of patient–participant–consumers that co-emerge through digital technologies. We must also ethically re-assess the rights and responsibilities of individuals in the digital era, and the implications of digital era changes for the future of biomedicine and healthcare.

The commitment of massive resources – financial, social, organisational, and human – drives developments in biomedicine. Fundamental transformations in the generation and application of knowledge are challenging our understandings and experiences of health, illness, and disease as well as the organisation of research and care. Coupled with the accelerated pace of change, it is pressing that we build authentic collaborations across and between the biomedical sciences, humanities and social sciences, and wider society. It is only in this way that we can ask and answer the penetrating questions that will shape improvements in human health now and in the decades ahead. We delineate the need for such commitments across five key areas of human and societal experience that impact on and are impacted by developments in biomedicine: disease; bodies; global movements and institutions; law; and, science-society engagements. Interactions between ideas, researchers, and communities across and within these domains can provide a way into creating the new knowledges, methods, and partnerships we believe are essential if the promises of biomedicine are to be realised.