National Priorities in Bioethics and Ethics in Science and Technology

Original Article | Pages: 53 - 68
  • Mehdi Shirzad - Nanobiotechnology Research Center, Avicenna Research Institute, ACECR, Tehran, Iran
  • Mohammad-Mehdi Akhondi - Nanobiotechnology Research Center, Avicenna Research Institute, ACECR, Tehran, Iran [mma.akhondi@gmail.com]
  • Mohammad Rasekh - 1. Nanobiotechnology Research Center, Avicenna Research Institute, ACECR, Tehran, Iran. 2. Professor of Law and Philosophy, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
  • Amir Hossein Khodaparast - Assistant professor at Iranian Institute of Philosophy, Tehran, Iran
  • Homa Mahmoudzadeh - Nanobiotechnology Research Center, Avicenna Research Institute, ACECR, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Background: Complexity and extensiveness of issues discussed in bioethics do not allow governments to deal with them simultaneously and to an equal extent. Therefore, it is necessary to take such measures, so that more important and urgent issues of bioethics are not left untouched. In order to answer the question of priority of bioethical problems, we need to answer a basic question: how and on the basis of which criteria can we distinguish more significant issues of bioethics from the less important ones?

Methods: This descriptive-analytical study was performed based on convenience sampling according to the conditions governing the research. Totally, 121 people answered the questionnaires sent. The data collection tool was a researcher-made questionnaire and Essential National Health Research (ENHR) strategy was used to prepare the questionnaire. After data collection, they were entered into SPSS statistical software version 20 and analyzed using ANOVA.

Results: The evaluation of the mean scores of criteria for setting the priorities showed that according to the respondents, the general criterion of "environmental sciences and technologies" with Mean±SD of 72.55±18.00 was the most important criterion and "end-of-life issues" with Mean±SD of 53.40±22.06 had the lowest priority in the research.

Conclusion: It is impossible to provide a "complete", "final", "general" and "permanent" list of priorities for bioethical issues in a country. The findings of this research just provided a partial sample and a temporary list among the list of priorities of bioethical issues in the context of Iran which were available during the time the study was conducted.

References:

  1. Bryant JA, Baggott la Velle L, Searle J. Introduction to bioethics. 1st ed. Chichester: John Wilew & Sons Ltd; 2005. 240 p.
  2. Rasekh M, Khodaparast AM. Qalamrove Akhlaqe Zisti. J Reprod Infertil. 2011;11(4):275-94.
  3. Cohen AI, Wellman CH. Contemporary debates in applied ethics. 1st ed. Oxford: Blackwell; 2005. 360 p.
  4. Okello D, Chongtrakul P. A manual for research priority setting using the ENHR strategy. South Africa: The council on health research for development COHRED document 2000.3. 2000. 52 p.
  5. Boslaugh S. Encyclopedia of epidemiology. USA: SAGE Publications; 2008. 1111 p.
  6. Sándor J. Human rights and bioethics: competitor or allies? The role of international law in shaping the contours of a new discipline. Med Law. 2008;27:15-28.
  7. Pourreza A. [Health economic: areas and perspectives]. Payesh. 2003;2(4):301-6. Persian.
  8. Krishna VS. Bioethics and biosafety in biotechnology. 1st ed. India: New age international; 2007. 160 p.
  9. Willis L. Nuffield council on bioethics. The ethics of research related to healthcare in developing countries. Med Confl Surviv. 2003; 19(1):74.
  10. Arabi SH. Theories of welfare and happiness: a comparative study. J Econ Essays. 2011;8 (15):61-87.
  11. Macer DRJ. Bioethics education, awareness of ethics and dissemination of knowledge. In: Menon MGK, Tandon PN, Agarwal, Sharma VP, editors. Human genome research: emerging ethical, legal, social and economic issues. New Delhi: Allied publishers Ltd; 1999. 252 p.
  12. Atherton Keith T. Genetically modified crops: assessing safety. 1st ed. London: Routledge; 2002. 241 p.
  13. Manson NC. O’Neil O. Rethinking informed consent in bioethics. 1st ed. Cambridge: Cambridge university press; 2007. 212 p.
  14. Macer DRJ. Bioethics, water, and the environment. La Mer. 1994;32:103-6.
  15. Navaee A. Hazine Darmane Salane 700 ta 800 Hezar Dollar. Available from: http://www.ra-diopayam.ir/ChannelNewsDetails/?m=020001&n=241202 [Accessed 9th July 2019]. Persian.
  16. Salem Khabar. Mohajerate Bimarane SMA be Kharej az Keshvar be Dalile Naboode Daroo. Available from: http://www.saalemnews.com/ news/1049/ [Accessed 9th July 2019]. Persian.
  17. Winslade WJ. Confidentiality. In: Post SG, editor. Encyclopedia of bioethics. New York: Macmillan reference; 2004. p. 495-6.
  18. Naraghi A. Darbareye Seghte Janin. Available from: http://arashnaraghi.org/wp/?p=343 [Ac-cessed 9th July 2019]. Persian.
  19. Garland MJ, Greenlick MR. Health insurance. In: Post SG, editor. Encyclopedia of bioethics. Macmillan Reference USA; 2004. p. 1122-1128.
  20. Saloner B, Daniels N. The ethics of the affordability of health insurance. J Health Polit Po-licy Law. 2011;36(5):815-27.
  21. Theodore L, Kunz RG. Nanotechnology: environmental implications and solutions. 1st ed. USA: John Wiley & Sons; 2005. 448 p.
  22. Bagheri A. Iranian medical ethics priorities: the results of a national study. J Med Ethics Hist Med. 2011;4(5):39-48.

XML Format

XML in HBI Format

Citation

Shirzad Mehdi, Akhondi Mohammad-Mehdi, Rasekh Mohammad, Khodaparast Amirhosein, Mahmoudzadeh Homa. National Priorities in Bioethics and Ethics in Science and Technology. Iran J Biomed Law Ethics. 2020;1(2):53-68.