#Bioethics folks, @profgoldberg and I are thrilled to have our paper Bioethics, (Funding) Priorities, and the Perpetuation of Injustice out as a target article for the American Journal of Bioethics ( @bioethics_net)

https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/I5WTNDS878CFNNF3IFMB/full?target=10.1080/15265161.2020.1867934

(1/13)

In this paper, we argue that (as is the case with other fields), funders of bioethics research set the priorities of the field through what they choose to fund, and that often these priorities perpetuate, rather than address, racial injustice. (2/13)

Most accts of social justice require prioritizing factors that drive syst. disadvantage, i.e., the structural determinants of health ( #SDoH). We argue that bioethics funders’ emphasis on emerging tech, to the exclusion of pop health ethics, fails in this obligation. (3/13)

Which isn't to say that there aren’t important emerging-tech issues that raise qs of systemic & racial injustice! But priority is the issue; #mitochondrialdisease affects far fewer people than #foodinsecurity, but bioethics funding does not correspond to health impact (4/13)

While we acknowledge that emerging technologies can have health impact for racial & ethnic minorities, epidemiologic evid is overwhelming that collective action on structural determinants of health is most likely to compress health inequities (5/13)

We agree with @DorothyERoberts, who recently said at a @theNASEM workshop: “Those engaged in gene-editing research have a greater stake in promoting genetic enhancement as a method to improve the human condition...and less of a stake in promoting societal change” (6/13)

Underfunding of scholarship & research on #SDoH therefore can perpetuate structural violence against BIPOC that has devastating impact on health and wellbeing in BIPOC communities - we can see this in the failed response to #covid19 (7/13)

Moreover, impact of underfunding work on population health ethics perpetuates injustice at a micro-level; effects on training and career development (esp. for grad students/junior scholars!) are important in setting priorities for the next generation of scholars (8/13)

Misallocations in bioethics funding also lead to #EpistemicInjustice. Fewer bioethicists trained in public & pop health = gap in shared resources needed for social interpretation of lived experience. This is “hermeneutical injustice,” 1 dimension of epistemic injustice. (9/13)

Given the unjust effects of prioritizing emerging tech over pop. health ethics, there should be a realignment of funding priorities to emphasize scholarship, training, & research to address #SDoH & pop. health ethics by public and private funders of bioethics (10/13)

Funders should establish/expand funding streams and mechanisms for scholarship & scholars working in these areas, esp. students, junior scholars, and bioethics Scholars of Color. We describe potential ways of doing this in the paper (11/13)

Finally, we call on the field of #bioethics to expand the boundaries of topics & methods deemed worthy of inquiry. We must lift up the voices & lived experiences of those most affected by health inequities if we are to live up to the ideals of justice we seek to uphold. (12/13)

We look forward to engaging in a conversation about this, both here on twitter dot com, and also in the pages of AJOB ( @bioethics_net) -- our paper will be open to OPCs later this year, so you’ve got a few months to write up your rebuttal if you disagree! (13/13)

PS - please forgive the (meaning-changing!) typo in the second sentence of the abstract! Clearly @prof_goldberg and I read this thing too many times to even notice it in the proofs