This article examines the various forms of woman-to-woman marriage in sub-Saharan Africa and discusses how each form can or could have been used by a woman to advance her social and/or economic status in society. Woman-to- woman marriage may also be beneficial to the persons involved other than the woman who initiates the marriage (the so-called female husband). The motivations of the other participants are also examined. Cross-culturally, women take wives under three circumstances, all of which enhance the status of the female husband: 1) barren women take wives to gain rights over children produced; 2) rich women accumulate wives to gain prestige and wealth in the same way men do through polygyny; and 3) in societies where women possess the right to have a daughter-in-law, a woman without a son may take a wife to give her a non-existent son.
In the debate about whether to return individual genetic results to research participants, consideration of the nature of results has taken precedence over contextual factors associated with different study designs and populations. We conducted in-depth interviews with 24 individuals who participated in a genotype-driven study of cystic fibrosis: 9 of the individuals had cystic fibrosis, 15 had participated as healthy volunteers, and all had gene variants of interest to the researchers. These interviews revealed that the two groups had different ideas about the meaning-fulness of genetic results. Our findings point to the importance of understanding research context, such as participants' relationship with the researcher and whether they have the disease condition under study, when considering whether to return individual results.
The regulations governing human subjects research (45 CFR 46) remain largely unchanged since their adoption. As a first step in their revision, the federal government published the Advance Notice of Proposed Rule Making (ANPRM) in 2011. The public responded with over 1100 comments. We selected a random sample of 300 comments, examining whether they addressed biospecimen research in terms of views on mandated consent, waivers of consent, use of a short general consent form, or identifiability of biospecimens. We conducted content analysis on the 109 comments that fulfilled these criteria Findings reveal little support for the proposal to mandate consent, strong support for the current waiver system, confusion about use of a standard general consent form, and disagreement about the implications of biospecimen identifiability. As the government moves ahead in its rulemaking process, it is important to consider what the public comments reveal about support and/or concerns for proposed changes.
<b><i>Background:</i></b> Online study recruitment is increasingly popular, but we know little about the decision making that goes into joining studies in this manner. In GeneScreen, a genomic screening study that utilized online education and consent, we investigated participants' perceived ease when deciding to join and their understanding of key study features. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> Individuals were recruited via mailings that directed them to a website where they could learn more about GeneScreen, consent to participate, and complete a survey. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Participants found it easy to decide to join GeneScreen and had a good understanding of study features. Multiple regression analyses revealed that ease of deciding to join was related to confidence in one's genetic self-efficacy, limited concerns about genetic screening, trust in and lack of frustration using the website, and the ability to spend a limited time on the website. Understanding of study features was related to using the Internet more frequently and attaining more information about GeneScreen conditions. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> The ease of deciding to join a genomic screening study and comprehension of its key features should be treated as different phenomena in research and practice. There is a need for a more nuanced understanding of how individuals respond to web-based consent information.
The advent of human gene editing has stimulated international interest in how best to govern this research. However, research on stakeholder views has neglected scientists themselves. We surveyed 212 scientists who use gene editing in their work. Questions captured views on oversight and use of somatic and germline human gene editing for treatment, prevention, and enhancement. More respondents were supportive of somatic than germline editing, and more supported gene editing for treatment compared to prevention. Few supported its use for enhancement. When presented with specific conditions, levels of support for somatic editing differed by type of condition. Almost all respondents said scientists and national government representatives should be involved in oversight, but only 28% said scientists are best positioned to oversee gene-editing research. These results can inform the development of sound approaches to research governance, demonstrating the importance of identifying specific gene-editing uses when considering oversight.
ABSTRACTTranslational research has tended to ignore the question of whether receiving a genomic diagnosis provides utility in community care contexts outside of doctors' offices and hospitals. However, empirical research with parents has highlighted numerous ways that a genomic diagnosis might be of practical value in the care provided by teachers, physical or occupational therapists, speech‐language pathologists, behavior analysts, and nonphysician mental health providers. In this essay, we propose a new conceptual model of genomic utility that offers the opportunity to better capture a broad range of potential implications of genomic technologies for families in various social and organizational systems. We explore crucial research directions to better understand how redefined utility might affect families and nonphysician professionals.
Genotype-driven recruitment is a potentially powerful approach for studying human genetic variation but presents ethical challenges. We conducted in-depth interviews with research participants in six studies where such recruitment occurred. Nearly all responded favorably to the acceptability of recontact for research recruitment, and genotype-driven recruitment was viewed as a positive sign of scientific advancement. Reactions to questions about the disclosure of individual genetic research results varied. Common themes included explaining the purpose of recontact, informing decisions about further participation, reciprocity, "information is valuable," and the possibility of benefit, as well as concerns about undue distress and misunderstanding. Our findings suggest contact about additional research may be least concerning if it involves a known element (e.g., trusted researchers). Also, for genotype-driven recruitment, it may be appropriate to set a lower bar for disclosure of individual results than the clinical utility threshold recommended more generally.
AbstractIntroductionThe South East Asia Research Collaboration in HIV (SEARCH) RV411 clinical trial in Thailand was a systematic investigation of analytic treatment interruption (ATI) in individuals diagnosed and treated since Fiebig stage I acute HIV infection. Here, we explore decision‐making processes and perceptions of trial participation in a phase I trial that raised important ethical considerations, to identify potential areas of improvement in this relatively new field of HIV research. Similar considerations apply to other HIV phase I trials, especially those involving ATI, making this trial a model to identify challenges and opportunities in promoting informed choice.MethodsUsing longitudinal semi‐structured interviews and a validated questionnaire, we examined how decisions to join or decline the trial were made, whether there was evidence of decisional conflict, and reactions to the trial outcomes. We also explored contrasting views and experiences in this small trial cohort. We report analyses of data from these questionnaires and interviews, conducted from February through December of 2016 with the 14 SEARCH cohort participants who either joined (n = 8) or declined (n = 6) participation in RV411.ResultsThe eight participants and six decliners had low overall decisional conflict, which remained low over time. Decision making was more difficult for decliners than participants, at least initially. While all interviewees described being satisfied with their decisions, our study identified important negative consequences for a few individuals, including seroconversion, negative experiences with optional procedures and disappointment due to rapid viral rebound.ConclusionsAlthough our results reflect the experiences of a small group invited to join this trial, our overall finding of low decisional conflict even while some individuals reported negative experiences provides lessons for clinical trial investigators. We developed points‐to‐consider in helping participants make informed choices, to support participants during the trial and to support decliners in their decisions.
