Ethical Impact Assessment of Sharing Nanosafety Data

<ns3:p> Decades of research on environmental, health and safety impacts of nanomaterials have generated large amounts of nanosafety data, but not all data are available online following the Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable (FAIR) principles. This lack of FAIR data delays progress in regulatory research, needed by regulators to develop evidence-based policies. In this context, researchers collaborating in the EU NanoSafety Cluster (www.nanosafetycluster.eu) engaged in a discussion on the ethical impacts related to (not) sharing nanosafety data. Screening the potential ethical impacts suggested that <ns3:italic>openly sharing nanosafety data relevant to risk governance of nanomaterials could give rise to ethical issues related to health and to liberties, and that these data might be misused.</ns3:italic> On the other hand, not <ns3:italic>openly sharing such nanosafety data could raise issues related to health, equity, common good, environment, and sustainability</ns3:italic> . A small-scale Ethical Impact Assessment (EIA) was performed between June 2022 and April 2024 to identify and evaluate more specific ethical issues and to propose recommendations for remediating ethical concerns. Preliminary results were presented in scientific conferences (one poster and three oral presentations), while the comments of the participants were incorporated in the final version of the presented paper. The EIA identified ethical issues and value conflicts related to the following sectors: intellectual property, social justice, public health, dual use, environmental ethics and animal ethics. Some recommendations for remediation are the competence of research organisations. Other recommendations call for societal dialogue and engagement. Yet other recommendations call for political action. </ns3:p>

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
Open Research Europe
Published
2024-10-25
DOI
https://doi.org/10.12688/openreseurope.18345.1
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Ethics in Clinical Research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.54

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Ethical Impact Assessment of Sharing Nanosafety Data

Ineke Malsch, Egon Willighagen, Cyrus C. M. Mody, Candida F. Sánchez Burmester
1 citations
Open Research Europe
Ethics in Clinical Research
0.54
article

Ethical Impact Assessment of Sharing Nanosafety Data

Ineke Malsch, Egon Willighagen, Cyrus C. M. Mody, Candida F. Sánchez Burmester
article en
1 citations

Abstract

<ns3:p> Decades of research on environmental, health and safety impacts of nanomaterials have generated large amounts of nanosafety data, but not all data are available online following the Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable (FAIR) principles. This lack of FAIR data delays progress in regulatory research, needed by regulators to develop evidence-based policies. In this context, researchers collaborating in the EU NanoSafety Cluster (www.nanosafetycluster.eu) engaged in a discussion on the ethical impacts related to (not) sharing nanosafety data. Screening the potential ethical impacts suggested that <ns3:italic>openly sharing nanosafety data relevant to risk governance of nanomaterials could give rise to ethical issues related to health and to liberties, and that these data might be misused.</ns3:italic> On the other hand, not <ns3:italic>openly sharing such nanosafety data could raise issues related to health, equity, common good, environment, and sustainability</ns3:italic> . A small-scale Ethical Impact Assessment (EIA) was performed between June 2022 and April 2024 to identify and evaluate more specific ethical issues and to propose recommendations for remediating ethical concerns. Preliminary results were presented in scientific conferences (one poster and three oral presentations), while the comments of the participants were incorporated in the final version of the presented paper. The EIA identified ethical issues and value conflicts related to the following sectors: intellectual property, social justice, public health, dual use, environmental ethics and animal ethics. Some recommendations for remediation are the competence of research organisations. Other recommendations call for societal dialogue and engagement. Yet other recommendations call for political action. </ns3:p>

Open Research EuropeVol. 4
Horizon 2020 Framework Programme
Openalex Percentile: Top 27%
Ethics in Clinical Research
0.54
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Ethical Impact Assessment of Sharing Nanosafety Data — Ineke Malsch, Egon Willighagen, et al. · Open Research Europe (2024) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS