Spatially structured genetic variation in a broadcast spawning bivalve: quantitative vs. molecular traits

Understanding the origin, maintenance and significance of phenotypic variation is one of the central issues in evolutionary biology. An ongoing discussion focuses on the relative roles of isolation and selection as being at the heart of genetically based spatial variation. We address this issue in a representative of a taxon group in which isolation is unlikely: a marine broadcast spawning invertebrate. During the free-swimming larval phase, dispersal is potentially very large. For such taxa, small-scale population genetic structuring in neutral molecular markers tends to be limited, conform expectations. Small-scale differentiation of selective traits is expected to be hindered by the putatively high gene flow. We determined the geographical distribution of molecular markers and of variation in a shell shape measure, globosity, for the bivalve Macoma balthica (L.) in the western Dutch Wadden Sea and adjacent North Sea in three subsequent years, and found that shells of this clam are more globose in the Wadden Sea. By rearing clams in a common garden in the laboratory starting from the gamete phase, we show that the ecotypes are genetically different; heritability is estimated at 23%. The proportion of total genetic variation that is between sites is much larger for the morphological additive genetic variation (QST = 0.416) than for allozyme (FST = 0.000–0.022) and mitochondrial DNA cytochrome-c-oxidase-1 sequence variation (ΦST = 0.017). Divergent selection must be involved and intraspecific spatial genetic differentiation in marine broadcast spawners is apparently not constrained by low levels of isolation.

What do international ethics guidelines say in terms of the scope of medical research ethics?

BACKGROUND: In research ethics, the most basic question would always be, "which is an ethical issue, which is not?" Interestingly, depending on which ethics guideline we consult, we may have various answers to this question. Though we already have several international ethics guidelines for biomedical research involving human participants, ironically, we do not have a harmonized document which tells us what these various guidelines say and shows us the areas of consensus (or lack thereof). In this manuscript, we attempted to do just that. METHODS: We extracted the imperatives from five internationally-known ethics guidelines and took note where the imperatives came from. In doing so, we gathered data on how many guidelines support a specific imperative. RESULTS: We found that there is no consensus on the majority of the imperatives and that in only 8.2% of the imperatives were there at least moderate consensus (i.e., consensus of at least 3 of the 5 ethics guidelines). Of the 12 clusters (Basic Principles; Research Collaboration; Social Value; Scientific Validity; Participant Selection; Favorable Benefit/Risk Ratio; Independent Review; Informed Consent; Respect for Participants; Publication and Registration; Regulatory Sanctions; and Justified Research on the Vulnerable Population), Informed Consent has the highest level of consensus and Research Collaboration and Regulatory Sanctions have the least. CONCLUSION: There was a lack of consensus in the majority of imperatives from the five internationally-known ethics guidelines. This may be partly explained by the differences among the guidelines in terms of their levels of specification as well as conceptual/ideological differences

The social licence for data-intensive health research: towards co-creation, public value and trust

BACKGROUND: The rise of Big Data-driven health research challenges the assumed contribution of medical research to the public good, raising questions about whether the status of such research as a common good should be taken for granted, and how public trust can be preserved. Scandals arising out of sharing data during medical research have pointed out that going beyond the requirements of law may be necessary for sustaining trust in data-intensive health research. We propose building upon the use of a social licence for achieving such ethical governance. MAIN TEXT: We performed a narrative review of the social licence as presented in the biomedical literature. We used a systematic search and selection process, followed by a critical conceptual analysis. The systematic search resulted in nine publications. Our conceptual analysis aims to clarify how societal permission can be granted to health research projects which rely upon the reuse and/or linkage of health data. These activities may be morally demanding. For these types of activities, a moral legitimation, beyond the limits of law, may need to be sought in order to preserve trust. Our analysis indicates that a social licence encourages us to recognise a broad range of stakeholder interests and perspectives in data-intensive health research. This is especially true for patients contributing data. Incorporating such a practice paves the way towards an ethical governance, based upon trust. Public engagement that involves patients from the start is called for to strengthen this social licence. CONCLUSIONS: There are several merits to using the concept of social licence as a guideline for ethical governance. Firstly, it fits the novel scale of data-related risks; secondly, it focuses attention on trustworthiness; and finally, it offers co-creation as a way forward. Greater trust can be achieved in the governance of data-intensive health research by highlighting strategic dialogue with both patients contributing the data, and the public in general. This should ultimately contribute to a more ethical practice of governance

Alertness, movement, and affective behaviour of people with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities (PIMD) on introduction of a playful interactive product:Can we get your attention?

Background: New technology may stimulate active leisure activities for people with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities (PIMD). We conducted a study of an interactive ball that responded to gross body movement, focus of attention, and vocalisations of users with PIMD. The aim was to increase alertness and body movement and elicit more expressions of positive, or fewer of negative affect.Method: Nine participants with PIMD played during 8–10 sessions. The movement was analysed automatically. Alertness and affective behaviour were coded manually. We analysed the last 5 sessions for each participant and compared 15 min of interaction with 15 min of rest.Results: Clearly positive effects were seen for three participants. Effects were seen in the unexpected direction for four participants. No strong effects were found for the remaining three participants.Conclusions: Interactive technologies may provide suitable activities for people with PIMD but individual differences play an important role

Towards advance care planning in pediatrics: a qualitative study on envisioning the future as parents of a seriously ill child

Advance care planning enables parents to discuss goals and preferences for future care and treatment of their seriously ill child. Although clinicians report parental factors as common barriers for advance care planning, parental views on reflecting on their child’s future have had limited exploration. A clear understanding of their perspectives might help clinicians to implement advance care planning tailored to parental needs. This interpretive qualitative study using thematic analysis aims to identify how parents envision the future when caring for their seriously ill child. Single interviews and two focus groups were attended by 20 parents of 17 seriously ill children. Parents reported to focus on the near future of their child. However, their actions and deeper thoughts showed perspectives towards a further future. Future perspectives initial focused on practical, disease-related themes, but more existential elaborations, reflecting underlying life values, were also identified. Parents n

Physicians' experiences with euthanasia: a cross-sectional survey amongst a random sample of Dutch physicians to explore their concerns, feelings and pressure

BACKGROUND: Physicians who receive a request for euthanasia or assisted suicide may experience a conflict of duties: the duty to preserve life on the one hand and the duty to relieve suffering on the other hand. Little is known about experiences of physicians with receiving and granting a request for euthanasia or assisted suicide. This study, therefore, aimed to explore the concerns, feelings and pressure experienced by physicians who receive requests for euthanasia or assisted suicide. METHODS: In 2016, a cross-sectional study was conducted. Questionnaires were sent to a random sample of 3000 Dutch physicians. Physicians who had been working in adult patient care in the Netherlands for the last year were included in the sample (n = 2657). Half of the physicians were asked about the most recent case in which they refused a request for euthanasia or assisted suicide, and half about the most recent case in which they granted a request for euthanasia or assisted suicide. RESULTS: Of the 2657 eligible physicians, 1374 (52%) responded. The most reported reason not to participate was lack of time. Of the respondents, 248 answered questions about a refused euthanasia or assisted suicide request and 245 about a granted EAS request. Concerns about specific aspects of the euthanasia and assisted suicide process, such as the emotional burden of preparing and performing euthanasia or assisted suicide were commonly reported by physicians who refused and who granted a request. Pressure to grant a request was mostly experienced by physicians who refused a request, especial

Patients' and Publics' Preferences for Data-Intensive Health Research Governance: Survey Study

Background: Patients and publics are generally positive about data-intensive health research. However, conditions need to be fulfilled for their support. Ensuring confidentiality, security, and privacy of patients’ health data is pivotal. Patients and publics have concerns about secondary use of data by commercial parties and the risk of data misuse, reasons for which they favor personal control of their data. Yet, the potential of public benefit highlights the potential of building trust to attenuate these perceptions of harm and risk. Nevertheless, empirical evidence on how conditions for support of data-intensive health research can be operationalized to that end remains scant. Objective: This study aims to inform efforts to design governance frameworks for data-intensive health research, by gaining insight into the preferences of patients and publics for governance policies and measures. Methods: We distributed a digital questionnaire among a purposive sample of patients and publics. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and nonparametric inferential statistics to compare group differences and explore associations between policy preferences. Results: Study participants (N=987) strongly favored sharing their health data for scientific health research. Personal decision-making about which research projects health data are shared with (346/980, 35.3%), which researchers/organizations can have access (380/978, 38.9%), and the provision of information (458/981, 46.7%) were found highly important. Health data–sharing policies strengthening direct personal control, like being able to decide under which conditions health data are shared (538/969, 55.5%), were found highly important. Policies strengthening collective governance, like reliability checks (805/967, 83.2%) and security safeguards (787/976, 80.6%), were also found highly important. Further analysis revealed that participants willing to share health data, to a lesser extent, demanded policies strengthening direct personal control than participants who were reluctant to share health data. This was the case for the option to have health data deleted at any time (P<.001) and the ability to decide the conditions under which health data can be shared (P<.001). Overall, policies and measures enforcing conditions for support at the collective level of governance, like having an independent committee to evaluate requests for access to health data (P=.02), were most strongly favored. This also applied to participants who explicitly stressed that it was important to be able to decide the conditions under which health data can be shared, for instance, whether sanctions on data misuse are in place (P=.03). Conclusions: This study revealed that both a positive attitude toward health data sharing and demand for personal decision-making abilities were associated with policies and measures strengthening control at the collective level of governance. We recommend pursuing the development of this type of governance policy. More importantly, further study is required to understand how governance policies and measures can contribute to the trustworthiness of data-intensive health research