اخلاق و تاریخ پزشکی ایران

Public engagement with research is designed to make scientists more accountable to research processes. Public engagement can act to foster the public's understanding about the very purpose and direction of scientific research. It can also allow communities to set their own research objectives. From the perspective of the scientist, public engagement programmes allow an opportunity for intense dialogue with research participants, and may even increase participation rates in research programmes. But, what happens when these two worlds collide? Who has the ‘upper hand' in setting research objectives - the researcher or the participant? In this talk I will explore the topic of public engagement with HIV research. Drawing on examples from around the world I will look at how public engagement can foster improved understanding between researchers and participants, possibly act to increase participation rates, and perhaps make research more ethical. Counterfactually, I will look at what happens when HIV researchers do not undertake public engagement - is their research successful? Is it even ethical?

Public health programmes based around the concept of screening are becoming increasingly common in our attempts to limit disease susceptibility, including transmission. In this talk I will examine the arguments for and against mandatory screening for infectious diseases. We all want to limit the spread of infection, but how far can public health goals over-ride individual choice? When a positive screening test implies negative outcomes for the individual, do we have a right to insist on participation? When the absence of screening can potentially affect the outcome of a pregnancy, whose rights predominate - the mother or the child? These, and other issues, will be explored through discussions of ethical concepts and case studies, with a particular focus on screening for HIV and other sexually transmitted infections.