Meredith Minkler reviews the current status and practice of CBR in the U.S. and abroad, providing reasons to undertake this admittedly more-complex path for public health research in particular (identifying questions that reflect real community concerns; achieving informed consent and building community capacity; increasing cultural sensitivity and validity of measurement tools, data interpretation, and interventions; uncovering critical lay knowledge; and improving participant recruitment and retention). Along with ethical issues, Minkler uses case study examples to highlight other challenges inherent in the practice, and provides some guidelines for engagement. To my mind, her review is balanced and raises several issues not touched upon by other scholarly writings re: CBR process and practice.
This article reflects on the similarities, differences and complexities of science and democracy. Indeed, science is present in our daily lives and democracy through our actions that foster society are present daily as well. Because of the impact of science on society, democracy may be seen as a core element in guiding science towards the greater good. Nevertheless, government use and intervention of science may not be always so. Therefore, it is the people's right and obligation to engage government and scientists reminding them of the benefits but also the risks of their projects and objectives.
Science and business may create a covenient and profitable conduit for developing new inventions and advancing science. However, through democracy, we may and should remind them of the ethical implications of their discoveries and the need to work for the greater good and benefitting all.
An interesting article that also provides some insights about Obama's policies on Science.