Impact Ethics

Events, By Category and Date:

» Go to news main

Quality Concerns & Problems with Support for Bioethics Research

Posted by nte on May 25, 2017 in In Action

Canadian Bioethics Society Annual Conference. 25 May 2017, Montréal QC.

Abstract

It is a commonplace to hold that bioethics research has become increasingly competitive with increased application pressures for grants, decreased funders and funds available. One would expect that this 'narrowing of the gate' would mean that only higher quality work would get supported. Nevertheless, though difficult to prove, it seems that inconsistency of quality, if anything, is increasing. Bioethics journals relevant for publishing research are increasing, while loyal readership seems more difficult to secure. One reason might be consumer disappointment: Who wants to stick with a journal if you cannot trust the quality of its articles? Conferences too are proliferating, but again membership attrition may be explained (in part) by consumer disappointment: Who wants to stick with a conference as leading experts (known for their high quality work) seem harder to pull in and the quality of plenary talks is 'hit-and-miss'? Cynics cite slippage in review standards and their execution. They may go further, blaming not just reviewers—the experts who should know better—but also expert and non-expert readers and conference attendees for tolerating, or even worse, proving satisfied with the results of increasingly lower standards. While this may be true, I contend that there is likely more than failure of expectations to explain this conundrum. This presentation hypothesizes that the inconsistency of quality germane to bioethics research outputs can be illuminated by applying George Akerlof's economic theory of the market for lemons (slang for used cars with the appearance of consistent quality but are found to be defective after being bought). Following Akerlof, I argue that bioethics research consumers may unintentionally 'buy' (accept and support) lemons because of an information asymmetry. As lemon producers and sellers, the relevant researchers have knowledge about the quality of their work that is not credibly communicated to consumers. Under conditions of not knowing what quality to expect, consumers adjust their support for any bioethics research output (of high or low quality) proportionate to what they consider that an average quality bioethics journal publication or plenary talk to be worth (based on previewed, observable characteristics). This information asymmetry encourages the 'sale' of lemons: bioethics researchers who produce and sell lower quality work get proportionately more (acceptance and support) than it's worth; those who produce and sell higher quality work get proportionately less (acceptance and support) than it's worth. This makes for an increase of lemons and a decrease of higher quality products on the bioethics research market. As the average quality of bioethics research outputs drops, so does the support, making it increasingly difficult for researchers of higher quality work to get support substantial enough to make it worthwhile. Pace the cynics, although some potential bioethics researchers would be willing to produce and sell their higher-quality products at the price that some potential consumers would be willing to pay, under conditions of information asymmetry, it is difficult for these parties to connect. Accordingly, exchanges in bioethics research that could benefit both consumers interested in, and researchers of, higher-quality work fail to take place.

Questions

1.      What are some different ways to explain inconsistency of quality across bioethics research outputs, such as scholarly publications and plenary talks? How might information asymmetry between those who produce-and-sell versus those who are the consumers of bioethics research outputs help to explain the state, and risk of future increasing, inconsistency of quality in products on offer in the bioethics research 'market-place'?

2.      Why might potential consumers of higher quality bioethics research journal publications and plenary talks not be able to connect, provide support to, and in return get the benefits of those with higher quality bioethics research journal publications and plenary talks to offer? And, vice versa: why might those with the relevant higher quality bioethics research outputs not be able to connect with these consumers?

3. What are ways through which to redress the problems of information asymmetry between producers and sellers of bioethics research and consumers of the relevant research outputs?