As part of our research team's knowledge transfer and exchange (KTE) initiatives, we developed a six-minute video-clip to enable productive deliberations among technology developers, clinicians and patient representatives. This video-clip summarises in plain language the valuable goals and features that are embedded in health technology and raises questions regarding the direction that should be taken by health care innovations. The use of such video-clips creates unique opportunities for face-to-face deliberations by enabling participants to interact and debate policy issues that are pivotal to the sustainability of health care systems. In our experience, we found that audiovisual-elicitation-based KTE initiatives can fill an important communication gap among key stakeholders: pondering, from a health care system perspective, why and how certain kinds of medical technologies bring a more valuable response to health care needs when compared to others.

Background

Pharmacogenomic technologies aim to redirect drug development to increase safety and efficacy of individual care. There is much hope that their implementation in the drug development process will help respond to population health needs, particularly in developing countries. However, there is also fear that novel pharmacogenomic drugs will remain too costly, be designed for the needs of the wealthy nations, and so constitute an unnecessary "luxury" for most populations. In this paper, we analyse the promise that pharmacogenomic technologies hold for improving global public health and identify strategies and challenges associated with their implementation.

Discussion

This paper evaluates the capacity of pharmacogenomic technologies to meet six criteria described by the University of Toronto Joint Centre for Bioethics group: 1) impact of the technology, 2) technology appropriateness, 3) capacity to address local burdens, 4) feasibility to be implemented in reasonable time, 5) capacity to reduce the knowledge gap, and 6) capacity for indirect benefits. We argue that the implementation of pharmacogenomic technologies in the drug development process can positively impact population health. However, this positive impact depends on how and for which purposes the technologies are used. We discuss the potential of these technologies to stimulate drug discovery in the case of rare (orphan diseases) or neglected diseases, but also to reduce acute adverse drug reactions in infectious disease treatment and prevention, which promises to improve global public health.

Conclusions

The implementation of pharmacogenomic technologies may lead to the development of drugs that appear to be a "luxury" for populations in need of numerous interventions that are known to have a demonstrable impact on population health (e.g., secure access to potable water, reduction of social inequities, health education). However, our analysis shows that pharmacogenomic technologies do have the potential to redirect drug development and distribution so as to improve the health of vulnerable populations. Strategies should thus be developed to better direct their implementation towards meeting the needs and responding to the realities of populations of the developing world (i.e., social, cultural and political acceptability, and local health burdens), making pharmacogenomic technologies a necessary "luxury" for global public health.

In 2009 the Canadian Blood services launched the Living Donor Paired Exchange Registry. This program circumvents the obstacle presented by blood-group or immunologic incompatibility between a living potential donor and his or her intended recipient. At the beginning, only 3 provinces joined the program, but as of October 2010 all Canadian provinces are participants. Up to now, participating donors have travelled to recipients’ transplant centres. We might question whether, in a country such as Canada, the donor or the organ should travel. In this article, we review the arguments for donor travel and the arguments for shipping the kidney.

Much attention has been given to financial conflicts of interest (COI) in bioscience research. Yet to date, surprisingly little attention has focused on other COIs that arise in supervisor-student relations. We examine a spectrum of related situations, ranging from standard graduate supervision through to dual relationships sometimes found in research with commercial potential. We illustrate some of the less-obvious factors that can bias supervisory judgment, and situate financial COI along a spectrum of forces that are deserving of recognition. We conclude by providing two sets of recommendations: one for individual supervisors, and the other for institutions and policy-makers.

Background

There has been debate on whether a global or unified field of bioethics exists. If bioethics is a unified global field, or at the very least a closely shared way of thinking, then we should expect bioethicists to behave the same way in their academic activities anywhere in the world. This paper investigates whether there is a 'global bioethics' in the sense of a unified academic community.

Methods

To address this question, we study the web-linking patterns of bioethics institutions, the citation patterns of bioethics papers and the buying patterns of bioethics books.

Results

All three analyses indicate that there are geographical and institutional differences in the academic behavior of bioethicists and bioethics institutions.

Conclusion

These exploratory studies support the position that there is no unified global field of bioethics. This is a problem if the only reason is parochialism. But these regional differences are probably of less concern if one notices that bioethics comes in many not always mutually understandable dialects.