Dataset Information

Myth-busting the provider-user relationship for digital sequence information.

ABSTRACT: The United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) formally recognized the sovereign rights of nations over their biological diversity. Implicit within the treaty is the idea that mega-biodiverse countries will provide genetic resources and grant access to them and scientists in high-income countries will use these resources and share back benefits. However, little research has been conducted on how this framework is reflected in real-life scientific practice. Currently, parties to the CBD are debating whether digital sequence information (DSI) should be regulated under a new benefit-sharing framework. At this critical time point in the upcoming international negotiations, we test the fundamental hypothesis of provision and use of DSI by looking at the global patterns of access and use in scientific publications. Our data reject the provider-user relationship and suggest a far more complex information flow for DSI. Therefore, any new policy decisions on DSI should be aware of the high level of use of DSI across low- and middle-income countries and seek to preserve open access to this crucial common good.

SUBMITTER: Scholz AH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8716360 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Myth-busting the provider-user relationship for digital sequence information.

Scholz Amber Hartman AH Lange Matthias M Habekost Pia P Oldham Paul P Cancio Ibon I Cochrane Guy G Freitag Jens J

GigaScience 20211201 12

<h4>Background</h4>The United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) formally recognized the sovereign rights of nations over their biological diversity. Implicit within the treaty is the idea that mega-biodiverse countries will provide genetic resources and grant access to them and scientists in high-income countries will use these resources and share back benefits. However, little research has been conducted on how this framework is reflected in real-life scientific practice.<h4>Resu ...[more]

PMID: 34966927

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCOVID-19 misinformation is a danger to public health. A range of formats are used by health campaigns to correct beliefs but data on their effectiveness is limited. We aimed to identify A) whether three commonly used myth-busting formats are effective for correcting COVID-19 myths, immediately and after a delay, and B) which is the most effective.MethodsWe tested whether three common correction formats could reduce beliefs in COVID-19 myths: (i) question-answer, ii) fact-only, (ii) fact-myth. n = 2215 participants (n = 1291 after attrition), UK representative of age and gender, were randomly assigned to one of the three formats. n = 11 myths were acquired from fact-checker websites and piloted to ensure believability. Participants rated myth belief at baseline, were shown correction images (the intervention), and then rated myth beliefs immediately post-intervention and after a delay of at least 6 days. A partial replication, n = 2084 UK representative, was also completed with immediate myth rating only. Analysis used mixed models with participants and myths as random effects.ResultsMyth agreement ratings were significantly lower than baseline for all correction formats, both immediately and after the delay; all β's > 0.30, p's < .001. Thus, all formats were effective at lowering beliefs in COVID-19 misinformation. Correction formats only differed where baseline myth agreement was high, with question-answer and fact-myth more effective than fact-only immediately; β = 0.040, p = .022 (replication set: β = 0.053, p = .0075) and β = - 0.051, p = .0059 (replication set: β = - 0.061, p < .001), respectively. After the delay however, question-answer was more effective than fact-myth, β = 0.040, p =. 031.ConclusionOur results imply that COVID-19 myths can be effectively corrected using materials and formats typical of health campaigns. Campaign designers can use our results to choose between correction formats. When myth belief was high, question-answer format was more effective than a fact-only format immediately post-intervention, and after delay, more effective than fact-myth format.

Project description:ObjectivesIn the United Kingdom, three people die every day awaiting an organ transplant. To address this, Scotland and England plan to follow Wales and introduce opt-out donor consent. However, emotional barriers, myths, and misconceptions may deter potential registrants. Our objectives were to estimate the number of people who plan to opt-out of the donor register and to test whether emotional barriers (e.g., medical mistrust) differentiated participants within this group. Finally, in an experimental manipulation, we tested whether intention to donate decreased by making emotional barriers more salient and increased following a widely used myth-busting intervention.DesignMixed between-within design.MethodsUK residents (n = 1,202) were asked whether they would choose opt-in, deemed consent, or opt-out/not sure if legislation changes to opt-out. Participants also completed measures of donor intentions at baseline, following a 12-item emotional barriers questionnaire and again, following a 9-item myth-busting intervention.ResultsFindings indicate that 66.1% of participants selected to opt-in to the donor register, 24.3% selected deemed consent, and 9.4% selected opt-out/not sure. Emotional barriers, notably fears surrounding bodily integrity, were significantly elevated in participants who selected opt-out/not sure. Increasing the salience of emotional barriers reduced donor intentions in the opt-out/not sure group. However, dispelling organ donation myths did not increase intention within this group.ConclusionsIf opt-out legislation is introduced in Scotland and England, approximately 10% of participants plan to opt-out or are not sure. Dispelling organ donation myths with facts may not be the best method of overcoming emotional barriers and increasing donor intentions for those planning to opt-out. Statement of contribution What is already known about this subject? In the United Kingdom, three people die every day waiting for an organ transplant. Although 90% of the UK population support organ donation, only 38% are registered donors. To address this, Scotland and England have recently proposed to introduce an opt-out system of donor consent. To date, limited research has investigated public attitudes and intentions regarding opt-out consent laws in Scotland and England. Emotional barriers (e.g., medical mistrust) are key factors that may deter potential registrants. However, no research has examined these barriers in relation to proposed opt-out consent laws. Myth-busting is widely used around the world as part of campaigns promoting organ donation. The NHS currently use a myth-busting feature on their webpage to dispel harmful myths about organ donation; however, there is limited evidence of the impact this has on intentions to become an organ donor. What does this study add? Approximately 10% of UK participants plan to opt-out or are unsure of their decision, if the law changes to opt-out. Emotional barriers, notably, bodily integrity fears, are significantly elevated in people who plan to opt-out. Increasing the salience of emotional barriers reduced donor intentions for people who plan to opt-out. A myth-busting intervention had no effect on donor intentions for people who plan to opt-out of the donor register.

Dataset Information

Myth-busting the provider-user relationship for digital sequence information.

Publications

Myth-busting the provider-user relationship for digital sequence information.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets