Bryn Williams-Jones

Quand nous parlons de conflits d’intérêts (CI) impliquant des professeurs d’université, nous abordons généralement la question comme s’il s’agissait d’inconduite à cause d’un intérêt financier. Les situations les plus évidentes concernent des cliniciens-chercheurs travaillant sur des essais cliniques commandités par des compagnies pharmaceutiques, des professeurs concevant de nouvelles technologies, créant des compagnies « start- up » ou consacrant plus de temps à la croissance de l’entreprise qu’à leurs autres responsabilités professionnelles. De telles situations ont incité la plupart des universités nord-américaines à adopter des politiques et des procédures de gestion des CI pour en limiter les conséquences négatives. Le problème, cependant, est que ces mesures donnent l’impression que la plupart des CI sont de nature financière et qu’elles sont le résultat de la corruption et de l’inconduite de « quelques pommes pourries ». Un CI est souvent perçu comme mauvais par définition, et donc toujours à éviter. Mais ce n’est pas le cas.

This chapter examines the ethical and institutional challenges of managing conflicts of interest (COI) in academic research settings, using the case of a public health–oriented research observatory engaged in collaborations with the agri-food industry. It begins by synthesizing the literature on COI in nutrition research, highlighting how financial, institutional, and ideological links of interest can shape research agendas, undermine credibility, and erode public trust. The analysis emphasizes that COI are not exceptional anomalies but pervasive and often unavoidable features of contemporary research environments. Building on this conceptual foundation, the chapter develops a structured governance framework for identifying, assessing, and managing links of interest. It proposes a staged process centred on systematic disclosure, evaluation of the intensity and nature of relationships, and context-sensitive decision-making. Particular attention is given to transparency, the clarification of roles and responsibilities in collaborations, and the importance of ongoing monitoring mechanisms. The chapter concludes with a set of practical tools and guiding questions designed to support institutional decision-making. These instruments aim to preserve institutional integrity while enabling ethically robust collaborations with external partners. Although developed for a specific organizational context, the proposed framework and tools are generalizable to other academic and public research institutions facing similar challenges.

Ce chapitre examine les défis éthiques et institutionnels liés à la gestion des conflits d’intérêts dans les milieux de recherche académique, à partir du cas d’un observatoire de recherche en santé publique engagé dans des collaborations avec l’industrie agroalimentaire. Il débute par une synthèse de la littérature sur les conflits d’intérêts en recherche en nutrition, en mettant en évidence la manière dont les liens d’intérêts financiers, institutionnels et idéologiques peuvent orienter les agendas de recherche, fragiliser la crédibilité et éroder la confiance du public. L’analyse souligne que les conflits d’intérêts ne constituent pas des anomalies exceptionnelles, mais des caractéristiques omniprésentes et souvent inévitables des environnements de recherche contemporains. S’appuyant sur cette base conceptuelle, le chapitre propose un cadre de gouvernance structuré visant à identifier, évaluer et gérer les liens d’intérêts. Il présente un processus en plusieurs étapes reposant sur la divulgation systématique, l’évaluation de l’intensité et de la nature des relations, ainsi que sur une prise de décision contextualisée. Une attention particulière est accordée à la transparence, à la clarification des rôles et responsabilités dans les collaborations, ainsi qu’à l’importance de mécanismes de suivi continus. Le chapitre se conclut par un ensemble d’outils pratiques et de questions directrices destinés à soutenir la prise de décision institutionnelle. Ces instruments visent à préserver l’intégrité institutionnelle tout en permettant des collaborations éthiquement robustes avec des partenaires externes. Bien qu’élaborés dans un contexte organisationnel spécifique, le cadre et les outils proposés sont transférables à d’autres institutions de recherche académique et publique confrontées à des enjeux similaires.

Résumé Ce chapitre examine l’élaboration d’une politique type en matière de conflits d’intérêts (CI) à l’Université de Montréal, conçue en réponse à l’intensification des attentes institutionnelles et réglementaires à l’égard de leur gestion dans les universités. S’appuyant à la fois sur des analyses antérieures des politiques de CI dans les universités canadiennes et sur le contexte propre à un établissement de recherche de grande taille, le chapitre soutient qu’une gouvernance efficace des CI ne peut se limiter à une logique de conformité. Elle requiert un cadre à la fois conceptuellement clair, opérationnellement utilisable et appuyé par des procédures, des outils de formation et des mécanismes de gouvernance adaptés. Le chapitre explicite les choix structurants de la politique proposée : une définition élargie des CI incluant des intérêts financiers, institutionnels, idéologiques, politiques et relationnels ; un préambule qui présente les CI comme des situations à gérer plutôt que comme des fautes ; et une architecture fondée sur des principes de responsabilité, de transparence, de responsabilité partagée, de gestion décentralisée, de collégialité dans l’évaluation, de protection de la réputation, de prévention et de formation. Une attention particulière est portée aux limites de la déclaration comme mécanisme autonome, ainsi qu’à la nécessité d’articuler des procédures locales avec une supervision centrale. Bien que cette politique n’ait pas été formellement adoptée, le chapitre montre comment son approche a néanmoins influencé l’élaboration de directives, d’outils, de formations et d’initiatives de sensibilisation. Il propose un modèle pratique et adaptable pour les universités souhaitant renforcer leur gouvernance des CI tout en soutenant une évolution de la culture institutionnelle.

This chapter examines the development of a model conflict of interest (COI) policy for the Université de Montréal, designed in response to increasing institutional and regulatory pressure on universities to manage conflicts of interest more effectively. Drawing on prior analyses of Canadian university COI policies and on the specific context of a large research-intensive institution, the chapter argues that effective COI governance requires more than formal compliance. It requires a policy framework that is conceptually clear, practically usable, and supported by procedures, educational tools, and governance structures. The chapter explains the reasoning behind the proposed policy’s main features: a broad definition of COI that includes financial, institutional, ideological, political, and relational interests; a preamble that frames COI as manageable rather than inherently blameworthy; and a principled structure emphasizing responsibilities, transparency, shared responsibility, decentralized management, solidarity in evaluation, reputation protection, prevention, and education. Particular attention is given to the limits of disclosure as a stand-alone mechanism and to the need for local procedures alongside central oversight. Although the draft policy was not formally adopted, the chapter shows how its underlying approach informed subsequent directives, forms, training, and awareness-raising initiatives. It offers a practical and adaptable model for other universities seeking to strengthen COI governance while fostering institutional culture change.

Le Comité de délibération éternelle est une œuvre de satire institutionnelle qui examine le fonctionnement — et parfois les dysfonctionnements — des universités contemporaines de l’intérieur. S’appuyant sur des pratiques familières de gouvernance académique, l’ouvrage analyse comment des structures conçues pour soutenir la prise de décision éthique — telles que les comités, les politiques et les processus administratifs — peuvent progressivement devenir des fins en soi. Plutôt que de faciliter le jugement, ces systèmes peuvent reporter la responsabilité, fragmenter l’obligation de rendre compte et privilégier la conformité procédurale au détriment de l’action substantielle. À travers une série de chapitres interconnectés, le livre montre comment la vie académique quotidienne est façonnée par des dynamiques récurrentes : la prolifération des réunions, l’expansion des exigences bureaucratiques, la mise en scène de l’expertise et la dépendance croissante à des systèmes techniques qui médiatisent la prise de décision. Adoptant la forme de documents institutionnels, de rapports et de récits narratifs, le texte mobilise la satire et l’exagération pour rendre visibles des dynamiques souvent difficiles à nommer directement. Il ne s’intéresse pas aux individus, mais aux logiques organisationnelles qui structurent les comportements entre les différents rôles — du corps professoral et des équipes administratives jusqu’aux personnes étudiantes et au personnel professionnel. L’ouvrage ne plaide pas pour l’abandon des processus ou de la gouvernance. Il pose plutôt une question plus fondamentale : que se passe-t-il lorsque les institutions s’appuient à ce point sur les procédures qu’elles en viennent à évincer le jugement et la responsabilité que ces mêmes procédures étaient censées soutenir? Accessible à un lectorat tant universitaire que non universitaire, cet ouvrage propose une réflexion critique — et souvent teintée d’humour — sur les tensions entre éthique et bureaucratie, intention et résultat, ainsi que décision et report dans la vie institutionnelle contemporaine.

The Committee of Eternal Deliberation is a work of institutional satire that examines how contemporary universities function — and sometimes malfunction — from the inside. Drawing on familiar practices of academic governance, the book explores how structures designed to support ethical decision-making — such as committees, policies, and administrative processes — can gradually become ends in themselves. Rather than facilitating judgment, these systems may defer responsibility, fragment accountability, and prioritize procedural compliance over meaningful action. Through a series of interconnected chapters, the book traces how everyday academic life is shaped by recurring patterns: the proliferation of meetings, the expansion of bureaucratic requirements, the performance of expertise, and the growing reliance on technical systems that mediate decision-making. Written in the form of institutional documents, reports, and narrative sketches, the text uses satire and exaggeration to make visible dynamics that are often difficult to name directly. It focuses not on individuals, but on the organizational logics that structure behaviour across roles — from faculty and administrators to students and professional staff. The book does not argue for the abandonment of process or governance. Instead, it raises a more fundamental question: what happens when institutions rely so heavily on procedures that they displace the very judgment and responsibility those procedures were meant to support? Accessible to readers both within and outside academia, this work offers a critical, and often humorous, reflection on the tensions between ethics and bureaucracy, intention and outcome, and decision and delay in modern institutional life.

No cenário acadêmico atual, universidades e seus pesquisadores estão cada vez mais envolvidos em parcerias financeiras com entidades privadas e públicas, levantando preocupações sobre potenciais conflitos de interesse. Essas alianças, embora não sejam novas, ganharam importância nas últimas décadas, impulsionando um exame mais atento de seu impacto na objetividade e credibilidade acadêmicas. Embora muita atenção tenha sido dedicada aos conflitos de interesse financeiros, particularmente em áreas como a pesquisa clínica, outras fontes de interesses concorrentes na academia têm sido relativamente negligenciadas. Este livro preenche essa lacuna ao explorar várias facetas dos conflitos de interesse para além das considerações financeiras, como as relações entre estudantes e professores e os processos de revisão por pares. Reunindo os resultados de mais de uma década de pesquisa realizada na Université de Montréal, este livro oferece percepções sobre políticas e práticas de gestão de conflitos de interesse. Ele aborda as diferentes abordagens regulatórias entre instituições e enfatiza a importância não apenas de estabelecer políticas claras, mas também de promover uma cultura de consciência ética e conformidade. Estruturado em três partes — 1) Professores e Estudantes, 2) Pesquisa e Publicação, e 3) Políticas Institucionais — o livro fornece recursos práticos para atores universitários. Cada seção apresenta estudos de caso, análises conceituais e discussões de políticas para auxiliar professores e gestores seniores na identificação, avaliação e gestão eficaz de conflitos de interesse. O objetivo é oferecer ferramentas que possam ampliar a compreensão sobre conflitos de interesse e apoiar a implementação de práticas éticas na academia.

Dans le paysage académique actuel, les universités et leurs chercheurs sont de plus en plus souvent impliqués dans des partenariats financiers avec des entités privées et publiques, ce qui suscite des inquiétudes quant aux conflits d’intérêts potentiels. Ces alliances, qui ne sont pas nouvelles, ont pris de l’importance au cours des dernières décennies, ce qui a incité à examiner de plus près leur impact sur l’objectivité et la crédibilité des universités. Bien que les conflits d’intérêts financiers aient fait l’objet d’une attention particulière, notamment dans des domaines tels que la recherche clinique, d’autres sources d’intérêts divergents dans le monde universitaire ont été relativement négligées. Cet ouvrage comble cette lacune en explorant diverses facettes des conflits d’intérêts au-delà des considérations financières, telles que les relations entre étudiants et professeurs et les processus d’évaluation par les pairs. Rassemblant les résultats de plus d’une décennie de recherches menées à l’Université de Montréal, cet ouvrage offre un aperçu des politiques et des pratiques de gestion des conflits d’intérêts. Il aborde les différentes approches réglementaires des institutions et souligne l’importance non seulement d’établir des politiques claires, mais aussi de favoriser une culture de sensibilisation à l’éthique et de conformité. Structuré en trois parties – Professeurs et étudiants, Recherche et publication, et Politiques institutionnelles – l’ouvrage fourni des ressources pratiques aux acteurs universitaires. Chaque section présente des études de cas, des analyses conceptuelles et des discussions politiques pour aider les professeurs et les cadres supérieurs à identifier, évaluer et gérer efficacement les conflits d’intérêts. L’objectif est d’offrir des outils qui peuvent améliorer la compréhension des conflits d’intérêts et soutenir la mise en œuvre de pratiques éthiques dans le monde universitaire.

In today’s academic landscape, universities and their researchers are increasingly entangled in financial partnerships with private and public entities, raising concerns about potential conflicts of interest. These alliances, though not new, have gained significance in recent decades, prompting a closer examination of their impact on academic objectivity and credibility. Although much attention has been devoted to financial conflicts of interest, particularly in fields like clinical research, other sources of competing interests in academia have been comparatively overlooked. This book fills that gap by exploring various facets of conflicts of interest beyond financial considerations, such as student-professor relationships and peer review processes. Bringing together the results of more than a decade of research conducted at the Université de Montréal, this book offers insights into conflict-of-interest management policies and practices. It addresses the varying regulatory approaches across institutions and emphasizes the importance of not only establishing clear policies but also fostering a culture of ethical awareness and compliance. Structured into three parts — 1) Professors and Students, 2) Research and Publication, and 3) Institutional Policies — the book provides practical resources for university stakeholders. Each section features case studies, conceptual analyses, and policy discussions to aid professors and senior managers in identifying, evaluating, and managing conflicts of interest effectively. The aim is to offer tools that can enhance understanding of conflicts of interest and support the implementation of ethical practices in academia.

Background: The education of medical students necessitates teaching not only the science of medicine but also the skills needed for ethical reflection and moral reasoning as well as professionalism. At the Université de Montréal, starting in 2004, third-year medical students were initiated to ethics and professionalism during a weekly seminar on clinical skills during their surgery rotation. Students had to recognize an ethical dilemma or a professionalism issue that occurred during the rotation and write a case narrative and reflection on the moral issue. Method: Student narratives describing ethical or professionalism incidents were collected between 2004 and 2020. These were analyzed to identify the moral challenges that students experienced, and how they reacted to ethical dilemmas or professionalism issues. Results: Of the 1145 narratives collected, 396 were coded as an ethical dilemma, subdivided into end-of-life decisions, decision for treatment, dilemmas concerning justice and resource allocation, and student educational dilemmas including relationships with residents. Professional issues were more frequently reported (n=749), subdivided into communication of bad news, professional behaviour and attitude, consent, confidentiality, truthful disclosure of sensitive results, errors, professional responsibility and commitment and relationships with colleagues. In 40% of narratives there was a positive opinion about the issues reported, while in 60% students felt the ethical decision or professional attitude or conduct was less than ideal. Conclusion: This seminar was an effective means for medical students to identify and discuss the ethical and professional issues experienced during their clerkship – issues regarding communication were the primary concern followed by professional behaviour. These narratives provide a good picture of the hidden curriculum; and they show that students can reflect meaningfully on issues concerning ethics and professionalism.

National and international organisations have implemented governance mechanisms to address a diversity of ethical, security and policy challenges raised by advances in research and innovation. These challenges become particularly complex when research or innovations are considered ‘dual-use’, i.e. can lead to both beneficial and harmful uses, and in particular, civilian (peaceful) and military (hostile) applications. While many countries have mechanisms (i.e. export controls) to govern the transfer of dual-use technology (e.g. nuclear, cryptography), it is much less clear how dual-use research from across the range of academic disciplines can or should be governed. Using the Canadian research and policy context as case study, this paper will first, examine the governance mechanisms currently in place to mitigate the negative implications of dual-use research and innovation; second, compare these with other relevant international governance contexts; and finally, propose some ways forward (i.e. a risk analysis approach) for developing more robust governance mechanisms.

The Covid-19 pandemic presented numerous ethical challenges, highlighting the critical role of bioethicists in public spaces and policymaking. Bioethicists acted as guardians against systemic injustices, critics of health policy decisions, and contributors to public debate. This text draws on our experiences as North American academic bioethicists to explore the different roles that bioethicists took during the pandemic, notably through media engagement, participation in policy-making, and in research and education. The pandemic underscored the importance of bioethics in the healthcare system and in research governance, the need for interdisciplinary collaboration, the importance of applying various ethics frameworks, and the need for effective communication to ensure practical ethical decision-making. It also demonstrated the distinct yet complementary roles of academic and professional bioethicists, with the former often serving as visible public critics, due to their academic liberty and independence, while the latter worked within their institutions to support clinicians and decision-makers, and to effect policy change. But these roles could also lead to tensions between academic and professional bioethicists, due to their different mandates, and both also experienced frustrations with the continued lack of understanding by some professionals and policy-makers regarding the pertinence and utility of bioethics to support ethically-informed decision-making. Ultimately, the pandemic was a pivotal time for bioethicists to influence public debate and policy, showcasing the field’s relevance and adaptability in addressing complex ethical issues.

« Jouer le jeu académique » est l’aboutissement de deux années de billets hebdomadaires sur le blogue BrynStorming de Bryn Williams-Jones, professeur de bioéthique à l’École de santé publique de l’Université de Montréal. En tant qu’éthicien intéressé depuis longtemps par les questions de justice, Williams-Jones a été motivé par le besoin de répondre aux injustices rencontrées dans le monde universitaire. De nombreux étudiants ou chercheurs échouent dans leurs études ou dans leur progression de carrière non pas parce qu’ils n’ont pas les capacités intellectuelles ou le dynamisme nécessaires, mais simplement parce qu’ils ne savent pas ce que l’on attend d’eux ou comment se présenter au mieux dans un environnement compétitif. En d’autres termes, ils ne connaissent pas « les règles du jeu, » et ce n’est pas juste, car les règles sont rarement explicites. Dans ce livre, qui s’articule autour de cinq grands sections – le parcours académique; l’identité professionnelle; la vie universitaire; la productivité et la créativité; les responsabilités multiples et la santé mentale – Williams-Jones fait part de ses 30 années d’expérience dans le monde universitaire pour rendre explicites les normes et les règles souvent implicites de la vie universitaire, afin que tous ceux qui le souhaitent puissent jouer le jeu de manière équitable.

“Playing the Academic Game” is the culmination of two years of weekly posts on the BrynStorming blog by Bryn Williams-Jones, professor of bioethics in the School of Public Health at the Université de Montréal. As an ethicist long interested by questions of justice, an important motivator for this project has been Williams-Jones’ need to respond to the injustices encountered in academia. Many students and researchers fail in their studies or career progression not because they don’t have the intellectual abilities or drive, but simply because they don’t know what’s expected of them or how to best present themselves in a competitive environment. That is, they don’t know “the rules of the game,” and this isn’t fair, because the rules are rarely made explicit. In this book, which is organized into 5 major sections – The Academic Career Path, Professional Identity, University Life, Productivity and Creativity, and Multiple Responsibilities and Mental Health – Williams-Jones shares 30 years of experience in academia to make explicit the often-implicit norms and rules of academic life, so that all who wish to can fairly play the academic game.

There has been increasing attention to financial conflicts of interest (COI) in public health research and policy making, with concerns that some decisions are not in the public interest. One notable problematic area is expert advisory committee (EAC). While COI management has focused on disclosure, it could go further and assess experts’ degree of (in)dependence with commercial interests. We analyzed COI disclosures of members of Québec’s immunization EAC (in Canada) using (In)DepScale, a tool we developed for assessing experts’ level of (in)dependence. We found great variability of independence with industry and that companies with the highest vaccine sales were predominantly associated with disclosed COIs. We argue that EACs can use the (In)DepScale to better assess and disclose the COIs that affect their experts. Going forward our scale could help manage risk and select members who are less conflicted to foster a culture of transparency and trust in advisors and policy-makers.

This scoping review addresses the issues of responsible conduct of research (RCR) that can arise in the practice of research-creation (RC), an emergent, interdisciplinary, and heterogeneous field at the interface of academic research and creative activities. Little is yet known about the nature and scope of RCR issues in RC, so our study examined three questions: (1) What are the specific issues in RC in relation to RCR? (2) How does the specificity of RC influence the understanding and practice of RCR? (3) What recommendations could help address the issues highlighted in the literature To answer these questions, we conducted a scoping review of the academic literature (n = 181 texts) dealing with RCR in RC. We found that researcher-creators faced some very different RCR challenges in comparison with their colleagues in the rest of academia. Addressing these issues is important for both the RCR and RC communities in order to ensure that the rapid development of this field occurs in line with the norms of RCR which, nonetheless, should be adapted to respect the particularities of RC and allow its contributions to the academic world.

The fields of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) and participatory foresight seek to establish, and to include publics within, anticipatory governance mechanisms. While scenario-based methods can bring to the publics’ attention the ethical challenges associated to existing technologies, there has been little empirical research examining how, in practice, prospective public deliberative processes should be organized to inform anticipatory governance. The goal of this article is to generate methodological insights into the way such methods can stimulate the public's moral imagination regarding what may (or may not) happen in the future and what should (or should not) happen in the future. Our qualitative analyses draw on a public deliberation study that included videos and online scenarios to support participants’ (n = 57) deliberations about fictional interventions for genetically at-risk individuals. Our findings clarify how participants: (1) challenged key elements of our scenarios; (2) extended several of their technical and moral prospects; (3) engaged personally with others, including our scenarios’ characters; and (4) mobilized the past creatively to reason about the future. Our methodology enabled participants to creatively and empathetically envision complex sociotechnical futures. Yet, important methodological limits should be acknowledged by those who design, implement and use public engagement methods to inform anticipatory governance.

Genetic testing technologies are rapidly moving from the research laboratory to the market place. Very little scholarship considers the implications of private genetic testing for a public health care system such as Canada’s. It is critical to consider how and if these tests should be marketed to, and purchased by, the public. It is also imperative to evaluate the extent to which genetic tests are or should be included in Canada’s public health care system, and the impact of allowing a two-tiered system for genetic testing. A series of threshold tests are presented as ways of clarifying whether a genetic test is morally appropriate, effective and safe, efficient and appropriate for public funding and whether private purchase poses special problems and requires further regulation. These thresholds also identify the research questions around which professional, public and policy debate must be sustained: What is a morally acceptable goal for genetic services? What are the appropriate benefits? What are the risks? When is it acceptable that services are not funded under health care? And how can the harms of private access be managed?

In March 2022, the Canadian Journal of Bioethics/Revue canadienne de bioéthique (CJB/RCB) celebrated its 10th anniversary. Given this important milestone, it is time to look back briefly on the history of the journal, describe its progression, and lay out future directions. The journal was launched in 2012 as BioéthiqueOnline (published until 2017) by a dedicated group of professors and students in the Bioethics Program at the School of Public Health of the Université de Montréal. Our ambitious aim was to fill an important gap in the Canadian bioethics community by providing a platform to publish Canadian research, and in so doing, bring together scholarly and professional resources to foster a robust, collaborative and bilingual bioethics community in Canada, and internationally. The journal was and remains the only bilingual (English and French), peer-reviewed, fully open access (no user fees or publication charges), non-profit bioethics journal in Canada. All manuscripts have bilingual cover material and are published in the language of submission (French or English), and some manuscripts are also published in both languages. From its inception, we sought to publish high quality and thought provoking theoretical, conceptual and empirical bioethics research, and to support diverse forms of scholarship.

Au Québec, la Loi sur l’accès aux documents des organismes publics et sur la protection des renseignements personnels offre une exception en matière de transparence à la plupart des institutions publiques où la recherche en santé publique est menée en leur permettant de ne pas divulguer leurs utilisations de données à caractère personnel (souvent collectées sans le consentement des personnes étudiées). Cette exception est éthiquement problématique en raison de préoccupations importantes (ex. : la protection de la vie privée et les inconvénients potentiels des utilisations secondaires de données) et nous soutenons que tous ceux qui mènent des recherches doivent être transparents et responsables du travail qu’ils accomplissent dans l’intérêt public.

Van Rensselaer Potter (1911-2001), le biologiste à l’origine du terme « bioéthique » dans les écrits nord-américains, considère que « real bioethics falls in the context of the ideals of […] Aldo Leopold », un forestier, philosophe et poète ayant marqué le XXe siècle. Associer Leopold à Potter a pour effet de placer la bioéthique dans la famille des éthiques de l’environnement, ce qui la différencie du sens conventionnel retenu en médecine et en recherche depuis le Rapport Belmont (1979), une déclaration ayant propulsé l’institutionnalisation de la bioéthique en Amérique du Nord. Cependant, diviser la bioéthique entre le médical et l’environnemental est réducteur. Potter propose au contraire une bioéthique globale s’intéressant aux enjeux situés à leur interface, dont ceux concernant la terre, la vie sauvage, la surpopulation, la consommation, etc. Cet article vise à amorcer un nouveau chantier d’analyse de la pensée de Potter en s’appuyant sur l’héritage de Leopold en biologie. Une synthèse de cette vision potterienne est proposée de manière à considérer son œuvre comme un tout cohérent s’intégrant aux grands débats qui transcendent les XXe et XXIe siècles. Sa vision apparaît comme une sagesse collective et prospective sous la forme d’une science de la survie et d’un code de bioéthique. Dépassant l’éthique de l’environnement, son association avec Leopold offre un modèle de la complexité s’imposant comme cas indissociable du contexte qui l’englobe, en améliorant nos façons d’intervenir en pratique dans un monde en constante transformation, à titre de gouvernance adaptative et de sagesse de la responsabilité.

L’idée d’une gouvernance collaborative gagne en popularité. Cependant, comment être véritablement collaboratif? Les systèmes de prises de décision diversifiés en intervenants doivent composer avec des parties prenantes aux positions, aux rôles, aux intérêts, aux missions, aux observations et aux valeurs différents. Par sa formule facile d’utilisation pour les éthicien·ne·s professionnel·le·s, l’outil de bioéthique co P·R·I·M·O·V (Position, Rôle, Intérêt, Mission, Observation, Valeurs) vise à améliorer la pratique des initiatives technosociales pour un développement durable, collaboratif et démocratique. L’outil reprend la logique d’analyse des conflits d’intérêts (CI) issue des cadres en éthique organisationnelle. Les CI, comme unité analytique en éthique, permettent d’anticiper et de gérer les problèmes pouvant compromettre à court et à long termes les activités d’un programme et sa gouvernance. L’outil a été construit à la suite d’une étude de cas sur la mise en œuvre d’un monitorage de l’utilisation des antibiotiques en santé animale au Québec, Canada. L’usage de cet outil de bioéthique est stratégique et aide à la négociation des positions, puis à la coconstruction d’un référentiel commun entre les parties prenantes en vue de préparer le terrain à une gouvernance collaborative favorisant la coopération.

This study’s objective was to understand Colombian adolescents’ experiences and preferences regarding access to sexual and reproductive health services (SRHS), either alone or accompanied. A mixed-method approach was used, involving a survey of 812 participants aged eleven to twenty-four years old and forty-five semi-structured interviews with participants aged fourteen to twenty-three. Previous research shows that adolescents prefer privacy when accessing SRHS and often do not want their parents involved. Such findings align with the longstanding tendency to frame the ethical principle of autonomy as based on independence in decision-making. However, the present study shows that such a conceptualization and application of autonomy does not adequately explain Colombian adolescent participants’ preferences regarding access to SRHS. Participants shared a variety of preferences to access SRHS, with the majority of participants attaching great importance to having their parents involved, to varying degrees. What emerges is a more complex and non-homogenous conceptualization of autonomy that is not inherently grounded in independence from parental involvement in access to care. We thus argue that when developing policies involving adolescents, policymakers and health professionals should adopt a nuanced “relational autonomy” approach to better respect the myriad of preferences that Colombian (and other) adolescents may have regarding their access to SRHS.

Ethics as a field should, we argue, pay more attention to the (eco)system. Van Rensselaer Potter, one of the pillars of contemporary bioethics, advocated for a global “bios” ethics that literally and metaphorically bridges the gap between biological knowledge and ethical reflection. However, a Potterian Bio-Ethics faces a major obstacle: its acentric focus. Consequently, Global Bio-Ethics remains opaque for those trained under the anthropocentric biomedical ethics that instrumentalizes the environment. This paper aims to demystify two key concepts—Globality and Complexity—and show how a Potterian Bio-Ethics can effectively bridge the gap between knowledge-building in ecology and policy-making in the context of medical and environmental practices. Drawing on an experience in Québec, Canada, to mitigate the threat of antimicrobial resistance using a biosurveillance system, we show the utility of having ethics as an integral part of ecosystem(ic) approaches to bridge health and environment. We conclude by arguing that bioethics (and bioethicists) should become a locus for cascading communication, collaboration, and translation by co-constructing biosurveillance data governance.

Dans notre société de plus en plus digitalisée, avons-nous vraiment le choix d’adopter ou non les technologies? Comment cette digitalisation impacte-t-elle les personnes âgées en particulier et son écosystème? Quels sont les enjeux éthiques soulevés par cette digitalisation? Ce texte vise à amener des éléments de réflexions en lien avec ces enjeux selon le point de vue de divers experts des domaines de la technologie, du vieillissement et de la bioéthique. Ces experts se sont rencontrés lors d’un symposium ayant eu lieu à Angers, France, en octobre 2019. Le texte est un compte-rendu des échanges et points de vue de ces experts, ainsi que des discussions ouvertes qu’ils ont eues avec l’assistance, portant sur les principaux enjeux soulevés par cette digitalisation selon la perspective des personnes âgées, des proches-aidants, des soignants, de la société et de la recherche.

University research ethics boards, although well established in North American since the 1980s, sometimes still have a poor reputation among researchers. They may be seen by members of the academic community as a bureaucratic system designed to prevent or slow down research, and one that does not understand the reality of researchers. This negative view is often the result of misunderstanding by 1) researchers and 2) some REBs about what an REB’s mandate is and how it should work. Based on the experience of an REB President and a bioethicist, this series of Frequently Asked Questions aims to demystify research ethics so that researchers and REBs can collaborate in the advancement of knowledge, while ensuring the ethical and responsible conduct of research.

Launched in 2007, the American Medical Students Association PharmFree Scorecard is an annual ranking of conflict of interest policies at American medical centres; it focuses on COIs that may occur when medical education seems likely to be influenced by university-industry relationships, especially those with the pharmaceutical and medical device industries. The PharmFree Scorecard has proven influential in stimulating changes in policy regarding the management of COI at American medical institutions, thus it provides a useful jumping off point for reflection on how and why medical education institutions in other countries – and for our purposes, Canada – should pay more attention to the appropriate identification and management of COI. The PharmFree Scorecard methodology examines a diversity of factors and interests that could influence medical education; as such, it is an interesting approach to analysing the COI policies of medical schools. To test its utility or applicability outside the US, we decided to apply the PharmFree Scorecard to the COI policies of the 16 Canadian universities hosting medical schools. Overall, Canadian institutions rank very poorly, especially in ensuring that education and training tools are provided to staff, students and faculty members to enable the identification and management of COI. However, differences between the US and Canadian medical education contexts, e.g., with regards to the governance and funding of universities, limit to some extent the direct applicability of the AMSA ranking. Canadian medical schools – and their host universities – nonetheless have much to learn from insights provided by the AMSA PharmFree Scorecard ranking, although they can and should go further in developing their own COI policies and procedures.