Advancing scientific excellence through inclusivity in the NIH BRAIN Initiative

Richardson, Ryan R.; Crawford, Devon C.; Ngai, John; Beckel-Mitchener, Andrea

doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2021.10.021

Cited by 7 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 11 publications

(10 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“… Palser et al (2022) address the demographic imbalance in the editorial board of neuroscientific journals, focusing on gender and geographic disparity. Such concerns are sometimes linked to the view that the diversity in the research community has a good effect on the advance of scientific research ( Asplund and Welle, 2018 ; Richardson et al, 2021 ). In NE articles, however, a comparable discussion is not found.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparative review on neuroethical issues in neuroscientific and neuroethical journals

Ishida,

Nishitsutsumi,

Kashioka

et al. 2023

Front. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study is a pilot literature review that compares the interest of neuroethicists and neuroscientists. It aims to determine whether there is a significant gap between the neuroethical issues addressed in philosophical neuroethics journals and neuroscience journals. We retrieved 614 articles from two specialist neuroethics journals (Neuroethics and AJOB Neuroscience) and 82 neuroethics-focused articles from three specialist neuroscience journals (Neuron, Nature Neuroscience, and Nature Reviews Neuroscience). We classified these articles in light of the neuroethical issue in question before we compared the neuroethical issues addressed in philosophical neuroethics with those addressed by neuroscientists. A notable result is a parallelism between them as a general tendency. Neuroscientific articles cover most neuroethical issues discussed by philosophical ethicists and vice versa. Subsequently, there are notable discrepancies between the two bodies of neuroethics literature. For instance, theoretical questions, such as the ethics of moral enhancement and the philosophical implications of neuroscientific findings on our conception of personhood, are more intensely discussed in philosophical-neuroethical articles. Conversely, neuroscientific articles tend to emphasize practical questions, such as how to successfully integrate ethical perspectives into scientific research projects and justifiable practices of animal-involving neuroscientific research. These observations will help us settle the common starting point of the attempt at “ethics integration” in emerging neuroscience, contributing to better governance design and neuroethical practice.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparative review on neuroethical issues in neuroscientific and neuroethical journals

Ishida,

Nishitsutsumi,

Kashioka

et al. 2023

Front. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Based on the effect of key factors of the social determinants of health, consistent and comprehensive reporting of sociodemographic data in cochlear implant research represents an important step forward to promote research rigor and equity. The National Institutes of Health has taken steps to promote equity in research recruitment and reporting through a variety of initiatives (34)(35)(36). Although there are systematic obstacles to recruit diverse patient populations in research, each cochlear implant program should strive to connect with communities that are underrepresented in clinical care and clinical research (37).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reporting of Sociodemographic Data in Cochlear Implant Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review

Meinhardt¹,

Sharrer²,

Perez³

et al. 2022

Otol Neurotol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The purpose of this study was to systematically evaluate the literature on the frequency of reporting of sociodemographic data (gender, race, ethnicity, education status, health insurance status, geographic location of residence, and socioeconomic status) among interventional clinical trials involving cochlear implant patients. Databases Reviewed: A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science, and SCOPUS to identify peer reviewed research. Methods: A systematic review was performed, which included original prospective clinical trial research studies involving cochlear implantation and/or interventional trials involving cochlear implant patients. Collected data included funding type, level of evidence, race reporting, ethnicity reporting, socioeconomic status reporting, education level reporting, type of insurance, geographic location, and gender of patients. Results: A total of 644 articles were included for review. Gender was the most reported sociodemographic factor (70% of included studies). Reporting of other data among included studies was low: educational level (6%), socioeconomic status (2%), race (1%), ethnicity (1%), insurance status (0.3%), and geography (1%). The odds of reporting gender (odds ratio [OR] = 1.51), education (OR = 1.81), and geography (OR = 2.72) increased with each subsequent publication date decade; however, this trend was not seen for reporting of race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, or insurance. The reporting of gender was less likely to be reported in studies with the pediatric participants (OR = 0.62), level II evidence (OR = 0.14), and device programming interventional studies (OR = 0.26). Conclusion: Reporting of sociodemographic data, other than gender, is low among prospective clinical trials involving cochlear implant patients. The lack of reporting of this key data may limit research rigor and generalizability. Clinical researchers are advised to prospectively collect these data to promote equity in cochlear implant research and clinical care.

show abstract

“…Women received 34% of NIH R01 awards in FY 2021 [1], and 34% of CTSA Program principal investigators in FY 2020 were women [15]. Since its 2014 report [2], the NIH have sought to address the decreased numbers of physician investigators [16], and the disproportionately low numbers of women and members of underrepresented racial and ethnic groups among awardees [17][18][19][20][21]. For example, in 2022, the NIH UNITE initiative launched a new program to award up to $20 million per year to underrepresented scientists [22].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are researchers in academic medicine flourishing? A survey of midcareer Ph.D. and physician investigators

Pololi¹,

Evans²,

Civian³

et al. 2023

J. Clin. Trans. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Advancing scientific excellence through inclusivity in the NIH BRAIN Initiative

Cited by 7 publications

References 11 publications

A comparative review on neuroethical issues in neuroscientific and neuroethical journals

A comparative review on neuroethical issues in neuroscientific and neuroethical journals

Reporting of Sociodemographic Data in Cochlear Implant Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review

Are researchers in academic medicine flourishing? A survey of midcareer Ph.D. and physician investigators

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About