Navigating ethical challenges in online wildlife trade research.
| Title: | Navigating ethical challenges in online wildlife trade research. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Morcatty TQ; Department of Geography, University College London, London, UK.; Oxford Wildlife Trade Research Group, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UK.; RedeFauna - Research Network on Diversity, Conservation and Use of Amazonian Fauna, Manaus, Brazil.; Su S; Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, Department of Biology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.; International Bird Conservation Partnership, Monterey, California, USA.; Siriwat P; Oxford Wildlife Trade Research Group, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UK.; Andersson AA; Division of Ecology and Biodiversity, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.; Atoussi S; Oxford Wildlife Trade Research Group, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UK.; Laboratoire de Recherche Biologie, Eau et Environnement LBEE, University 8 May 1945 Guelma, Guelma, Algeria.; Feddema K; School of Business and Law, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Western Australia, Australia.; Henriques S; Global Center for Species Survival, Indianapolis Zoo, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA.; IUCN, Species Survival Commission, Spider and Scorpion Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland.; Department of Biological Sciences, Butler University, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA.; Janssen J; Monitor Conservation Research Society, Big Lake Ranch, British Columbia, Canada.; Karve A; Wildlife Conservation Society, Bengaluru, India.; Pytka J; Department of Biology, University of Padova, Padova, Italy.; Thompson RM; Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology, School of Anthropology and Conservation, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK.; School of Engineering, Technology and Design, Canterbury Christ Church University, Canterbury, UK.; Nijman V; Oxford Wildlife Trade Research Group, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UK.; Wright J; Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.; Roberts DL; Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology, School of Anthropology and Conservation, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK. |
| Source: | Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology [Conserv Biol] 2024 Oct; Vol. 38 (5), pp. e14341. |
| Publication Type: | Journal Article |
| Language: | English |
| Journal Info: | Publisher: Blackwell Publishing, Inc. on behalf of the Society for Conservation Biology Country of Publication: United States NLM ID: 9882301 Publication Model: Print Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1523-1739 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 08888892 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Conserv Biol Subsets: MEDLINE |
| Imprint Name(s): | Publication: Malden, MA : Blackwell Publishing, Inc. on behalf of the Society for Conservation Biology; Original Publication: Boston, Mass. : Blackwell Scientific Publications |
| MeSH Terms: | Conservation of Natural Resources*/methods ; Commerce*/ethics ; Animals, Wild*; Animals ; Internet ; Privacy ; Ethics, Research ; Wildlife Trade |
| Abstract: | The surge in internet accessibility has transformed wildlife trade by facilitating the acquisition of wildlife through online platforms. This scenario presents unique ethical challenges for researchers, as traditional ethical frameworks for in-person research cannot be readily applied to the online realm. Currently, there is a lack of clearly defined guidelines for appropriate ethical procedures when conducting online wildlife trade (OWT) research. In response to this, we consulted the scientific literature on ethical considerations in online research and examined existing guidelines established by professional societies and ethical boards. Based on these documents, we present a set of recommendations that can inform the development of ethically responsible OWT research. Key ethical challenges in designing and executing OWT research include the violation of privacy rights, defining subjects and illegality, and the risk of misinterpretation or posing risks to participants when sharing data. Potential solutions include considering participants' expectations of privacy, defining when participants are authors versus subjects, understanding the legal and cultural context, minimizing data collection, ensuring anonymization, and removing metadata. Best practices also involve being culturally sensitive when analyzing and reporting findings. Adhering to these guidelines can help mitigate potential pitfalls and provides valuable insights to editors, researchers, and ethical review boards, enabling them to conduct scientifically rigorous and ethically responsible OWT research to advance this growing field.; (© 2024 The Author(s). Conservation Biology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society for Conservation Biology.) |
| References: | Adom, D., & Boamah, D. A. (2020). Local attitudes toward the cultural seasonal hunting bans in Ghana's Bomfobiri Wildlife Sanctuary: Implications for sustainable wildlife management and tourism. Global Ecology and Conservation, 24, Article e01243.; American Anthropological Association (AAA). (2012). Ethics Statement. https://ich.unesco.org/doc/src/Example_code_of_ethics‐American_Anthropological_Association‐Principles_of_Professional_Responsibility.pdf.; American Sociological Association (ASA). (2018). ASA Code of Ethics. https://www.asanet.org/wp‐content/uploads/asa_code_of_ethics‐june2018.pdf.; Andersson, A. A., Gibson, L., Baker, D. M., Cybulski, J. D., Wang, S., Leung, B., Chu, L. M., & Dingle, C. (2021). Stable isotope analysis as a tool to detect illegal trade in critically endangered cockatoos. Animal Conservation, 24(6), 1021–1031.; Andersson, A. A., Tilley, H. B., Lau, W., Dudgeon, D., Bonebrake, T. C., & Dingle, C. (2021). CITES and beyond: Illuminating 20 years of global, legal wildlife trade. Global Ecology and Conservation, 26, Article e01455.; Antunes, A. P., Rebêlo, G. H., Pezzuti, J. C. B., deVieira, M. A. R. M., deConstantino, P. A. L., Campos‐Silva, J. V., Fonseca, R., Durigan, C. C., Ramos, R. M., doAmaral, J. V., Camps Pimenta, N., Ranzi, T. J. D., Lima, N. A. S., & Shepard, G. H. (2019). A conspiracy of silence: Subsistence hunting rights in the Brazilian Amazon. Land Use Policy, 84, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.02.045.; Bergin, D., & Nijman, V. (2020). Wildlife trade research methods for lorises and pottos. In K. A. I. Nekaris & A. Burrows (Eds.), Evolution, ecology and conservation of lorises and pottos (pp. 339–361). Cambridge University Press.; Borges, A. K. M., Oliveira, T. P. R., Rosa, I. L., Braga‐Pereira, F., Ramos, H. A. C., Rocha, L. A., & Alves, R. R. N. (2021). Caught in the (inter) net: Online trade of ornamental fish in Brazil. Biological Conservation, 263, Article 109344.; Bezerra‐Santos, M. A., Mendoza‐Roldan, J. A., Thompson, R. A., Dantas‐Torres, F., & Otranto, D. (2021). Illegal wildlife trade: A gateway to zoonotic infectious diseases. Trends in Parasitology, 37(3), 181–184.; British Psychological Society (BPS). (2021). BPS Code of Conduct and Ethics. https://explore.bps.org.uk/content/report‐guideline/bpsrep.2021.inf94.; British Society of Criminology. (2015). British Society of Criminology Statement of Ethics for Researchers. https://www.britsoccrim.org/documents/BSCEthics2015.pdf.; British Sociological Association (BSA). (2017). BSA Statement of Ethical Practice. https://www.britsoc.co.uk/media/24310/bsa_statement_of_ethical_practice.pdf.; Brittain, S., Ibbett, H., de Lange, E., Dorward, L., Hoyte, S., Marino, A., Milner‐Gulland, E. J., Newth, J., Rakotonarivo, S., Veríssimo, D., & Lewis, J. (2020). Ethical considerations when conservation research involves people. Conservation Biology, 34(4), 925–933.; Buchanan, E. A., & Hvizdak, E. E. (2009). Online survey tools: Ethical and methodological concerns of human research ethics committees. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 4(2), 37–48.; Burkell, J., Fortier, A., Wong, L. L. Y. C., & Simpson, J. L. (2014). Facebook: Public space, or private space? Information, Communication & Society, 17(8), 974–985.; Cooper, & Harrison (2001). The social organization of audio piracy on the Internet. Media, Culture, & Society, 23(1), 71.; Davies, A., Hinsley, A., Nuno, A., & Martin, R. O. (2022). Identifying opportunities for expert‐mediated triangulation in monitoring wildlife trade on social media. Conservation Biology, 36(2), Article e13858.; Di Minin, E., Fink, C., Hausmann, A., Kremer, J., & Kulkarni, R. (2021). How to address data privacy concerns when using social media data in conservation science. Conservation Biology, 35(2), 437–446.; Di Minin, E., Fink, C., Hiippala, T., & Tenkanen, H. (2019). A framework for investigating illegal wildlife trade on social media with machine learning. Conservation Biology, 33(1), 210–213.; Doughty, H., Wright, J., Veríssimo, D., Lee, J. S., Oliver, K., & Milner‐Gulland, E. J. (2020). Strategic advertising of online news articles as an intervention to influence wildlife product consumers. Conservation Science and Practice, 2(10), Article e272.; Eastham, L. A. (2011). Research using blogs for data: Public documents or private musings? Research in Nursing & Health, 34(4), 353–361.; Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC). (2015). ESCR Framework for Research Ethics. https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20220207164637/http://esrc.ukri.org/files/funding/guidance‐for‐applicants/esrc‐framework‐for‐research‐ethics‐2015/.; Eid, E., & Handal, R. (2018). Illegal hunting in Jordan: Using social media to assess impacts on wildlife. Oryx, 52(4), 730–735.; Ess, C., & Jones, S. (2004). Ethical decision‐making and Internet research: Recommendations from the AoIR Ethics Working Committee. In E. A. Buchanan (Ed.), Readings in virtual research ethics: Issues and controversies (pp. 27–44). IGI Global.; Ess, C. M., & Hård af Segerstad, Y. H. (2019). Everything old is new again: 178 The ethics of digital inquiry and its design. In Å Mäkitalo, T. E. Nicewonger, & M. Elam (Eds.), Designs for experimentation and inquiry (pp. 179–196). Routledge.; European Union (EU). (2016). Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation). Official Journal of the European Union, L119, 1–88. https://eur‐lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/oj.; Eynon, R., Schroeder, R., & Fry, J. (2009). New techniques in online research: Challenges for research ethics. Twenty‐First Century Society, 4(2), 187–199.; Feddema, K., Harrigan, P., Nekaris, K. A. I., & Maghrifani, D. (2020). Consumer engagement behaviors in the online wildlife trade: Implications for conservationists. Psychology & Marketing, 37(12), 1755–1770.; Fiesler, C., Beard, N., & Keegan, B. C. (2020). No Robots, Spiders, or Scrapers: Legal and Ethical Regulation of Data Collection Methods in Social Media Terms of Service. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, 14, 187–196. https://doi.org/10.1609/icwsm.v14i1.7290.; Franzke, A. S., Bechmann, A., Zimmer, M., Ess, C., & the Association of Internet Researchers (AoIR). (2020). Internet Research: Ethical Guidelines 3.0. AoIR. https://aoir.org/reports/ethics3.pdf.; García‐Díaz, P., Ross, J. V., Woolnough, A. P., & Cassey, P. (2017). The illegal wildlife trade is a likely source of alien species. Conservation Letters, 10(6), 690–698.; Hand, D. J. (2018). Aspects of data ethics in a changing world: Where are we now? Big Data, 6(3), 176–190.; Heinrich, S., Toomes, A., Shepherd, C. R., Stringham, O. C., Swan, M., & Cassey, P. (2022). Strengthening protection of endemic wildlife threatened by the international pet trade: The case of the Australian shingleback lizard. Animal Conservation, 25(1), 91–100.; Hibbin, R. A., Samuel, G., & Derrick, G. E. (2018). From “a fair game” to “a form of covert research”: ‘Research ethics committee members’ differing notions of consent and potential risk to participants within social media research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 13(2), 149–159.; Hinsley, A., Lee, T. E., Harrison, J. R., & Roberts, D. L. (2016). Estimating the extent and structure of trade in horticultural orchids via social media. Conservation Biology, 30(5), 1038–1047.; Holt, T. J., & Lampke, E. (2010). Exploring stolen data markets online: Products and market forces. Criminal Justice Studies, 23(1), 33–50.; Hughes, A., Auliya, M., Altherr, S., Scheffers, B., Janssen, J., Nijman, V., Shepherd, C. R., D'Cruze, N., Sy, E., & Edwards, D. P. (2023). Determining the sustainability of legal wildlife trade. Journal of Environmental Management, 341, Article 117987.; Ingram, D. J., Morcatty, T. Q., Bizri, H. R. E., Poudyal, M., & Mundy, E. (2024). Urgent actions needed by digital services platforms to help achieve conservation and public health goals. Conservation Letters, https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.13023.; John, F. S., Brockington, D., Bunnefild, N., Duffy, R., Homewood, K., Jones, J. P., Keane, A., Milner‐Gulland, E. J., Nuno, A., & Razafimanahaka, J. H. (2016). Research ethics: Assuring anonymity at the individual level may not be sufficient to protect research participants from harm. Biological Conservation, 196, 208–209.; Kharchenko, O., Kronda, O., Kryvosheyina, I., & Zerov, K. (2021). Protection of intellectual property rights on the Internet: New challenges. Amazonia Investiga, 10(41), 224–236.; Kitchin, H. A. (2007). Research ethics and the Internet: Negotiating Canada's Tri‐Council Policy Statement. Brunswick Books.; Kosinski, M., Matz, S. C., Gosling, S. D., Popov, V., & Stillwell, D. (2015). Facebook as a research tool for the social sciences: Opportunities, challenges, ethical considerations, and practical guidelines. American Psychologist, 70(6), 543–556.; Krishnasamy, K., Shepherd, C. R., & Or, O. C. (2018). Observations of illegal wildlife trade in Boten, a Chinese border town within a Specific Economic Zone in northern Lao PDR. Global Ecology and Conservation, 14, Article e00390.; Krotov, V., Johnson, L., & Silva, L. (2020). Tutorial: Legality and ethics of web scraping. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 47, 539–563.; Lafferty, N. T., & Manca, A. (2015). Perspectives on social media in and as research: A synthetic review. International Review of Psychiatry, 27(2), 85–96.; Mambelli, G., Prandi, C., & Mirri, S. (2020). What influences sentiment analysis on social networks: A case study. In 2020 IEEE Symposium on Computers and Communications (ISCC) (pp. 1–6). IEEE. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9219659/.; Markham, A. (2003). Critical junctures and ethical choices in internet ethnography. In M. Thorseth (Ed.), Applied ethics in internet research (pp. 51–63). NTNU University Press.; Markham, A., & Buchanan, E. (2012). Ethical decision‐making and internet research: Recommendations by the AoIR Ethics Working Committee. http://www.aoir.org/reports/ethics2.pdf.; McDavitt, M. T. (2004). Sales of sawfish rostra on eBay. In L. R. Harrison & N. K. Dulvy (Eds.), Sawfish: A Global Strategy for Conservation (p. 74). IUCN Species Survival Commission's Shark Specialist Group.; McMillan, S. E., Dingle, C., Allcock, J. A., & Bonebrake, T. C. (2021). Exotic animal cafes are increasingly home to threatened biodiversity. Conservation Letters, 14(1), Article e12760.; Meta. (2023). Terms of Service. Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/terms.php.; Monkman, G. G., Kaiser, M., & Hyder, K. (2018). The ethics of using social media in fisheries research. Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture, 26(2), 235–242.; Morcatty, T. Q., Peters, G., Nekaris, K. A. I., Cardoso, P., Fukushima, C. S., El Bizri, H. R., & Nijman, V. (2022). Tech companies liable for illegal wildlife trade. Science, 377(6607), 721–721.; Moreno, M. A., Goniu, N., Moreno, P. S., & Diekema, D. (2013). Ethics of social media research: Common concerns and practical considerations. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16(9), 708–713.; Morton, O., Scheffers, B. R., Haugaasen, T., & Edwards, D. P. (2021). Impacts of wildlife trade on terrestrial biodiversity. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 5(4), 540–548.; Newing, H. (2010). Conducting research in conservation: Social science methods and practice. Routledge.; Nijman, V., Smith, J. H., Foreman, G., Campera, M., Feddema, K., & Nekaris, K. A. I. (2021). Monitoring the trade of legally protected wildlife on Facebook and Instagram illustrated by the advertising and sale of apes in Indonesia. Diversity, 13(6), Article 236.; Nurse, A. (2016). Animal harm: Perspectives on why people harm and kill animals. Routledge.; Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP), Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health (OASH), & U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). (2021). International Compilation of Human Research Standards. OASH & Office for Human Research Protections. https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/ohrp‐international‐compilation‐2021.pdf.; Orton‐Johnson, K. (2010). Ethics in online research; evaluating the ESRC framework for research ethics categorisation of risk. Sociological Research Online, 15(4), 126–130.; Pagoto, S., & Nebeker, C. (2019). How scientists can take the lead in establishing ethical practices for social media research. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 26(4), 311–313.; Pain, N. (2015). Balancing competing rights in the criminal justice system: Biodiversity protection and indigenous hunting and fishing rights in Australia and elsewhere. IUCN Academy of Environmental Law 13th Annual Colloquium, September 7–12, 2015, Jakarta Indonesia.; Roberts, D. L., Mun, K., & Milner‐Gulland, E. J. (2022). A systematic survey of online trade: Trade in Saiga antelope horn on Russian‐language websites. Oryx, 56(3), 352–359.; Rodham, K., & Gavin, J. (2006). The ethics of using the internet to collect qualitative research data. Research Ethics, 2(3), 92–97.; Razkallah, I., Atoussi, S., Telailia, S., Abdelghani, M., Zihad, B., & Moussa, H. (2019). Illegal wild birds’ trade in a street market in the region of Guelma, north‐east of Algeria. Avian Biology Research, 12(3), 96–102.; Sajeva, M., Augugliaro, C., Smith, M. J., & Oddo, E. (2013). Regulating internet trade in CITES species. Conservation Biology, 27(2), 429–430.; Salas‐Picazo, R. I. S., Ramírez‐Bravo, O. E., Meza‐Padilla, I., & Rivera, E. E. C. (2023). The role of social media groups on illegal wildlife trade in four Mexican states: A year‐long assessment. Global Ecology and Conservation, 45, Article e02539.; Samuel, G., & Buchanan, E. (2020). Guest editorial: Ethical issues in social media research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 15(1‐2), 3–11.; Scheffers, B. R., Oliveira, B. F., Lamb, I., & Edwards, D. P. (2019). Global wildlife trade across the tree of life. Science, 366(6461), 71–76.; Shepherd, C. R. (2008). Civets in trade in Medan, North Sumatra, Indonesia (1997–2001) with notes on legal protection. Small Carnivore Conservation, 38, 34–36.; Shiffman, D. S., Macdonald, C., Ganz, H. Y., & Hammerschlag, N. (2017). Fishing practices and representations of shark conservation issues among users of a land‐based shark angling online forum. Fisheries Research, 196, 13–26.; Siriwat, P., & Nijman, V. (2020). Wildlife trade shifts from brick‐and‐mortar markets to virtual marketplaces: A case study of birds of prey trade in Thailand. Journal of Asia‐Pacific Biodiversity, 13(3), 454–461.; Stringham, O. C., Toomes, A., Kanishka, A. M., Mitchell, L., Heinrich, S., Ross, J. V., & Cassey, P. (2021). A guide to using the Internet to monitor and quantify the wildlife trade. Conservation Biology, 35(4), 1130–1139.; Su, S., Macdonald, E. A., Beseng, M., Thomaz, F., & Macdonald, D. W. (2022). The link between wildlife trade and the global donkey skin product network. Conservation Science and Practice, 4(6), Article e12676.; Sugiura, L., Wiles, R., & Pope, C. (2017). Ethical challenges in online research: Public/private perceptions. Research Ethics, 13(3‐4), 184–199.; Thompson, R. M., Hall, J., Morrison, C., Palmer, N. R., & Roberts, D. L. (2021). Ethics and governance for internet‐based conservation science research. Conservation Biology, 35(6), 1747–1754.; Toivonen, T., Heikinheimo, V., Fink, C., Hausmann, A., Hiippala, T., Järv, O., Tenkanen, H., & Di Minin, E. (2019). Social media data for conservation science: A methodological overview. Biological Conservation, 233, 298–315.; Torous, J., & Nebeker, C. (2017). Navigating ethics in the digital age: Introducing connected and open research ethics (CORE), a tool for researchers and institutional review boards. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 19(2), Article e6793.; Townsend, L., & Wallace, C. (2016). Social media research: A guide to ethics. University of Aberdeen.; Waskul, D. (1996). Considering the electronic participant: Some polemical observations on the ethics of on‐line research. The Information Society, 12(2), 129–140.; Wildlife Conservation and Protection Act, B.E. 2562 (WARPA). (2019). FAOLEX Database, FAO. https://www.fao.org/faolex/results/details/en/c/LEX‐FAOC201932/.; Wilkinson, D., & Thelwall, M. (2011). Researching personal information on the public web: Methods and ethics. Social Science Computer Review, 29(4), 387–401.; X. (2023). Terms of Service. Retrieved from https://x.com/en/tos.; Xu, Q., Cai, M., & Mackey, T. K. (2020). The illegal wildlife digital market: An analysis of Chinese wildlife marketing and sale on Facebook. Environmental Conservation, 47(3), 206–212.; Yi‐Ming, L., Zenxiang, G., Xinhai, L., Sung, W., & Niemelä, J. (2000). Illegal wildlife trade in the Himalayan region of China. Biodiversity & Conservation, 9, 901–918.; Yu, X., & Jia, W. (2015). Moving targets: Tracking online sales of illegal wildlife products in China. TRAFFIC Briefing, 1009649, 1–10.; Zetter, K. (2016). Researchers sue the government over computer hacking law ‐ Wired. AHRECS, https://ahrecs.com/latestnews/researchers‐sue‐government‐computer‐hacking‐law‐wired‐author‐kim‐zetter‐june‐2016/.; Zook, M., Barocas, S., Boyd, D., Crawford, K., Keller, E., Gangadharan, S. P., Narayanan, A., Nelson, A., & Pasquale, F. (2017). Ten simple rules for responsible big data research. PLoS Computational Biology, 13(3), Article e1005399. |
| Contributed Indexing: | Keywords: IWT; MIF; comercio electrónico; consentimiento informado; ethics; e‐commerce; informed consent; internet; privacidad; privacy; redes sociales; social media; tráfico de fauna; wildlife trafficking; ética; Local Abstract: [Publisher, Spanish; Castilian] Los retos éticos de la investigación del mercado virtual de fauna Resumen El incremento en el acceso al internet ha transformado el mercado de fauna ya que facilita la adquisición de ejemplares a través de plataformas virtuales. Este escenario representa un reto ético único para los investigadores, pues los marcos éticos tradicionales para la investigación en persona no pueden aplicarse fácilmente en línea. Actualmente no hay lineamientos claros para el procedimiento ético apropiado cuando se investiga el mercado virtual de fauna (MVF). Como respuesta, consultamos la literatura científica sobre las consideraciones éticas en la investigación en línea y analizamos los lineamientos existentes establecidos por las sociedades profesionales y los comités éticos. Con base en estos documentos, presentamos un conjunto de recomendaciones que pueden guiar el desarrollo de la investigación sobre el MVF con responsabilidad ética. Los retos más importantes para el diseño y ejecución de la investigación sobre el MVF incluyen la violación del derecho a la privacidad, la definición de los sujetos y la ilegalidad y el riesgo de malinterpretar o presentar riesgos para los participantes cuando se comparten datos. Las soluciones potenciales incluyen considerar las expectativas de privacidad de los participantes, definir cuándo los participantes son autores y cuándo sujetos, entender el contexto legal y cultural, minimizar la recolección de datos, asegurar el anonimato y eliminar los metadatos. Las mejores prácticas también involucran la sensibilidad cultural cuando se analizan y reportan los resultados. La adhesión a estos lineamientos puede mitigar los posibles retos y proporcionar información valiosa para los editores, investigadores y comités de ética, permitiéndoles realizar una investigación con rigor científico y responsabilidad ética sobre el MVF para avanzar en este campo creciente de investigación. |
| Entry Date(s): | Date Created: 20240909 Date Completed: 20240909 Latest Revision: 20240909 |
| Update Code: | 20260130 |
| DOI: | 10.1111/cobi.14341 |
| PMID: | 39248761 |
| Database: | MEDLINE |
Journal Article