The Responsibility of Farmers, Public Authorities and Consumers for Safeguarding Bees Against Harmful Pesticides

The worldwide decline in bees and other pollinating insects is a threat to biodiversity and food security, and urgent action must be taken to stop and then reverse this decline. An established cause of the insect decline is the use of harmful pesticides in agriculture. This case study focuses on the use of pesticides in Norwegian apple production and considers who among farmers, consumers and public authorities is most responsible for protecting bees against harmful pesticides. The extent to which these three different groups consider themselves responsible and the degree to which they are trusted by each of the other groups are also studied. This empirical study involves both qualitative interviews with Norwegian apple farmers, consumers and public authorities and survey data from consumers and farmers. The results show that consumers consider public authorities and farmers equally responsible for protecting bees, while farmers are inclined to consider themselves more responsible. Farmers, consumers and public authorities do not consider consumers significantly responsible for protecting bees, and consumers have a high level of trust in both farmers and public authorities regarding this matter. This study also finds that a low level of consumer trust in farmers or public authorities increases consumers’ propensity to purchase organic food, suggesting that those who do not trust that enough action is adopted to protect the environment take on more individual responsibility. This paper adds to the existing literature concerning the allocation of responsibility for environmental outcomes, with empirical evidence focusing specifically on pesticides and bees.The Responsibility of Farmers, Public Authorities and Consumers for Safeguarding Bees Against Harmful PesticidespublishedVersio

«If you give them your little finger, they’ll tear off your entire arm» : losing trust in biobank research

publishedVersio

Minimal-invasiv glaukomkirurgi (MIGS) for individer med glaukom. En metodevurdering

Source at https://www.fhi.no/en/publ/2021/Minimally-Invasive-Glaucoma-Surgery-MIGS-for-individuals-with-glaucoma/Key messages: This health technology assessment (HTA) summarises and supplements a 2019 Canadian HTA on the effectiveness and safety of micro-invasive glaucoma surgery (MIGS) versus other treatment options. Further, it contains cost-effectiveness analysis based on the Canadian HTA, in addition to patient partners’ considerations, organizational and ethical considerations relevant to discussions of MIGS’ role in Norwegian routine care. The Canadian evidence, which included 32 studies and 24 comparisons, was inconclusive due to very low to low certainty. Our supplementary findings show that: • MIGS with Hydrus Microstent combined with cataract surgery reduces intraocular pressure (IOP) at 24 months, compared with cataract surgery alone (high-certainty evidence) • MIGS with iStent inject combined with cataract surgery probably reduces IOP at 24 months, compared with cataract surgery alone (moderate-certainty evidence) • For other techniques there is either no or little difference between the MIGS and control interventions, or it is uncertain whether there is a difference in effectiveness • Neither MIGS procedures, nor alternative surgical strategies appear to be at high risk of adverse events • Lifetime total cost for glaucoma treatment ranged from NOK 30 000 to NOK 83 000 per patient, depending on treatment strategy and baseline disease stage. The incremental Quality adjusted life years (QALYs) for MIGS between comparators ranged between – 0.080 and 0.057 • MIGS is suitable as a outpatient surgery without hospital admission. Clinicians need training. Clear criteria for patient selection shuld be developed. Experts predict that the number of MIGS procedures may increase to twice as many in 2024 than today • The clinical evidence on MIGS is limited. The main reason for this is the lack of comparative studies. Our health economic evaluation shows some scenarios where MIGS may be cost-effective, depending on comparator and disease stage. Our analysis puts individuals with glaucoma in severity class 1.Hovedbudskap: Denne metodevurderingen (HTA) oppsummerer og supplerer en kanadisk HTA fra 2019 om effekt og sikkerhet ved minimal-invasiv glaukomkirurgi (MIGS). Videre gjorde vi kost-nytteanalyser basert på den kanadiske HTAen, i tillegg til brukerperspektiv, organisatoriske og etiske vurderinger som er relevante i en diskusjon om hvorvidt MIGS bør være et rutinetilbud i norsk praksis. Det kanadiske kunnskapsgrunnlaget, som omfattet 32 studier og 24 sammenlikninger, var usikkert på grunn av svært lav til lav tillit til resultatene. Våre supplerende funn viser at: • MIGS med Hydrus Microstent kombinert med kataraktkirurgi reduserer intraokulært trykk (IOP) etter 24 måneder, sammenliknet med kataraktkirurgi alene (høy tillit til resultatet) • MIGS med iStent inject og kataraktkirurgi reduserer trolig IOP etter 24 måneder, sammenliknet med kataraktkirurgi alene (middels tillit til resultatet) • Det er usikkert hvorvidt det er noen forskjell i effekt mellom MIGS og kontrollgruppene for andre sammenligninger • Det ser ikke ut til å være noen betydelig forskjell mellom MIGS og kontrollgruppene i risiko for uønskede hendelser/skader • Total livstidskostnad per pasient for glaukombehandling ble estimert mellom 30 000 norske kroner og 83 000 norske kroner avhengig av behandlingsstrategi og sykdomsstadie ved start. Inkrementell QALY for MIGS sammenlignet med komparatorer var mellom – 0.080 og 0.057 • MIGS egner seg for poliklinisk kirurgi. Øyeleger må ha opplæring for å utføre MIGS. Det bør utvikles klare kriterier for pasientseleksjon. Eksperter predikerer en dobling av antall MIGS prosedyrer i 2024 enn antallet i dag • Kunnskapsgrunnlaget for effekt og sikkerhet om MIGS er begrenset. Hovedgrunnen er mangel på sammenliknende studier. Vår helseøkonomiske vurdering viser at MIGS kan være kostnadseffektive, avhengig av sammenliknng og sykdomsutvikling. Vår analyse setter individer med glaukom i gruppe for alvorlighetsgrad 1

Data in question: A survey of European biobank professionals on ethical, legal and societal challenges of biobank research

Source at https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0221496. Biobanks have evolved, and their governance procedures have undergone important transformations. Our paper examines this issue by focusing on the perspective of the professionals working in management or scientific roles in research-based biobanks, who have an important impact on shaping these transformations. In particular, it highlights that recent advances in molecular medicine and genomic research have raised a range of ethical, legal and societal implications (ELSI) related to biobank-based research, impacting directly on regulations and local practices of informed consent (IC), private-public partnerships (PPPs), and engagement of participants. In our study, we investigate the ways that these concerns influence biobanking practices and assess the level of satisfaction of the cross-national biobanking research communities with the ELSI related procedures that are currently in place. We conducted an online survey among biobankers and researchers to investigate secondary use of data, informing and/or re-contacting participants, sharing of data with third parties from industry, participant engagement, and collaboration with industrial partners. Findings highlight the need for a more inclusive and transparent biobanking practice where biobanks are seen in a more active role in providing information and communicating with participants; the need to improve the current IC procedures and the role of biobanks in sharing of samples and data with industry partners and different countries, and the need for practical, tangible and hands-on ethical and legal guidance

Privacy and Property in the Biobank Context

The papers in this special thematic issue of HEC Forum critically and carefully explore key issues at the intersection of patient privacy and commodification. For example, should hospitals be required to secure a person’s consent to any possible uses to which his discarded body parts might be put after his treatment or should it only be concerned with securing his informed consent to his treatment? Should a hospital be required to raise the possibility of the commodification of such (patient-discarded) body parts, or should it only be required to address this issue if the patient asks about it? Should persons be paid to engage in medical research, or should they only be compensated for their time, on the grounds, perhaps, that such payment would be coercive or exploitative, for it might move some persons to agree to participate in research who otherwise would not have done? This number of HEC Forum illustrates the widespread implications of these issues upon which healthcare ethics committees are called to deliberate

Das persönliche Genom: Abschied von Privatheit und Zustimmung in der Biobankforschung?

Die ersten Karten des menschlichen Genoms wurden im Jahr 2000 präsentiert. Heute, zehn Jahre später, scheint die Sequenzierung des Genoms jedes einzelnen Bürgers, die es ermöglichen würde, die Vorsorge und Behandlung von Krankheiten zu personalisieren, nicht mehr allzu weit entfernt. In diesem Aufsatz werde ich einige ethische Herausforderungen sondieren, die sich mit einer individualisierten Genomik (personal genomics)1 für die Privatheit (privacy) und die Zustimmung (consent) zur Forschung ergeben. Unser wachsendes genetisches Wissen stellt den Schutz der Privatsphäre bzw. den Datenschutz in der Biobankforschung in Frage. Es hat sich herausgestellt, dass deidentifiziertes genetisches Material2 in steigendem Maße Rückschlüsse auf die Identität der Personen, von denen dieses Material stammt, zulässt. Welche Konsequenzen hat das für die Privatheit von Biobankteilnehmern3 und wie sollen wir mit genomischen Informationen im Rahmen der Rekrutierung für Biobanken und die Biobankforschung umgehen? Es ist schwer absehbar, wie sich die Geschichte der individualisierten Genomik weiterentwickeln wird. Was bedeutet diese Ungewissheit für die Regelung der Zustimmung im Zusammenhang mit Biobanken? Meine These lautet, dass es in diesem Kontext unangemessen ist, Zustimmung und Privatheit strikt in Begriffen von Eigentum (ownership) und Kontrolle (control) zu sehen. Für ein tragfähiges Verständnis der in diesem Feld auftretenden ethischen Probleme müssen wir eine relationale Perspektive entwickeln. Diese rückt die (veränderlichen) Beziehungen und Kontexte in den Blick, welche über die Bedeutung und Angemessenheit der Zustimmungsanforderungen und des Datenschutzes bestimmen