The philanthropic model of scientific knowledge dissemination: a historical and ethical analysis (1982–2024)
G. A. Quezada Castro,
M. d. P. Quezada Castro,
M. d. P. Castro Arellano,
J. E. Quezada Castro,
E. M. Barturen Mondragón https://doi.org/10.17853/1994-5639-2026-6-61-78
Abstract
Introduction. The principle of beneficence is one of the fundamental pillars of bioethics, ensuring the protection of the dignity of participants in scientific research. Its significance extends to medical practice, technology, and professional ethics. Aim. This study aims to analyse the body of scholarly work relating to the principle of beneficence in the dissemination of scientific knowledge, and to identify key academic journals, authors, publications, terminology, and general characteristics of such works. Methodology and research methods. A bibliometric analysis was conducted on articles indexed in the Scopus database, in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. A total of 581 documents were analysed using the Biblioshiny interface. Results and scientific novelty. The findings of the study demonstrate an increase in the number of publications linking the principle of beneficence to medical ethics, autonomy, informed consent, distributive justice, and palliative care. The most prominent journals identified were the “Journal of Medical Ethics”, the “AMA Journal of Ethics”, and “Nursing Ethics”, all of which are ranked in the first quartile in Scopus.The most cited document (420 citations) was the article “Beyond ‘Do No Harm’: The Challenge of Constructing Ethical Relationships in Refugee Research”. Thematic evolution revealed the integration of the principle of beneficence with issues relating to scientific education and bioethical training. Practical significance. The results highlight the importance of enhancing scientific and bioethical education, which could be beneficial for professional practice and the training of future researchers.
About the Authors
G. A. Quezada Castro
Universidad Tecnológica del Perú
Peru
Peru
Guillermo Alexander Quezada Castro – Lecturer, Faculty of Law
Lima
M. d. P. Quezada Castro
Universidad Tecnológica del Perú
Peru
Peru
María del Pilar Quezada Castro – Lecturer, Faculty of Law
Lima
M. d. P. Castro Arellano
Universidad Alas Peruanas
Peru
Peru
María del Pilar Castro Arellano – Lecturer, Faculty of Law
Lima
J. E. Quezada Castro
Universidad Católica de Santa María
Peru
Peru
Jesús Enrique Quezada Castro – Master’s Student (Public Management)
Arequipa
E. M. Barturen Mondragón
Universidad Señor de Sipán
Peru
Peru
Eliana Maritza Barturen Mondragón – Lecturer, Faculty of Law
Chiclayo
References
1. Chinn C.A., Malhotra B.A. Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: a gtheoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education. 2002;86(2):175–218. doi:10.1002/sce.10001
2. Squire K.D., Jan M. Mad city mystery: developing scientific argumentation skills with a place-based augmented reality game on handheld computers. Journal of Science Education and Technology. 2007;16(1):5–29. doi:10.1007/s10956-006-9037-z
3. Weil C., Larraín M., Galaz C., Solís K., Concha L. Scientific education as a support of social mobility.Estudios Pedagógicos. 2009;35(1):63–78. doi:10.4067/S0718-07052009000100004
4. Driver R., Asoko H., Leach J., Scott P., Mortimer E. Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher. 1994;23(7):5–12. doi:10.3102/0013189X023007005
5. Hodson D. Time for action: science education for an alternative future. International Journal of Science Education. 2003;25(6):645–670. doi:10.1080/09500690305021
6. Berland L., McNeill K. A learning progression for scientific argumentation: understanding student work and designing supportive instructional contexts. Science Education. 2010;94(5):765–793. doi:10.1002/sce.20402
7. Mackenzie C., McDowell C., Pittaway E. Beyond “Do No Harm”: the challenge of constructing ethical relationships in refugee research. Journal of Refugee Studies. 2007;20(2):299–319. doi:10.1093/jrs/fem008
8. Ravitsky V., Wilfond B. Disclosing individual genetic results to research participants. The American Journal of Bioethics. 2007;6(6):8–17. doi:10.1080/15265160600934772
9. Thomasma D. Beyond medical paternalism and patient autonomy: a model of physician conscience for the physician-patient relationship. Annals of Internal Medicine. 1983;98(2):243–248. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-98-2-243
10. Sacristan J.A., Aguaron A., Avendaño C., Garrido P., Carrion J., Gutierrez A., et al. Patient involvement in clinical research: why, when, and how. Patient Preference and Adherence. 2016;10:631–640.doi:10.2147/PPA.S104259
11. Miller R. Globalizing justice: the ethics of poverty and power. Oxford Academic. 2010. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199581986.001.0001
12. Jones G., Whitaker M. Anatomy’s use of unclaimed bodies: reasons against continued dependence on an ethically dubious practice. Clinical Anatomy. 2012;25(2):246–254. doi:10.1002/ca.21223
13. Alcântara F. Perception of physiotherapists on bioethical aspects in palliative care. Revista Bioética. 2021;29(1):107–114. doi:10.1590/1983-80422021291451
14. Jones K.A., Semple M. Ethics in clinical trials. Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine. 2017;18:586–589. doi:10.1016/j.mpaic.2017.07.005
15. Beil M., Proft I., Van Heerden D., Sviri S., Van Heerde P. Ethical considerations about artificial intelligence for prognostication in intensive care. Intensive Care Medicine Experimental. 2019;7(1):1–13. doi:10.1186/s40635-019-0286-6
16. Padala P.R., Jendro A.M., Padala K.P. Conducting clinical research during the COVID-19 pandemic: investigator and participant perspectives. JMIR Public Health and Surveillance. 2020;6(2):1–4. doi:10.2196/18887
17. Gauthier S., Leuzy A., Racine E., Rosa-Neto P. Diagnosis and management of Alzheimer’s disease: past, present and future ethical issues. Progress in Neurobiology. 2013;110:102–113. doi:10.1016/j.pneurobio.2013.01.003
18. Caro-Romero H.D. Heritable genome editing: an exploratory study from the bioethical principle of beneficence. Revista Colombiana de Bioética. 2020;15(1):1–17. doi:10.18270/rcb.v15i1.2732
19. Jansen L.A. Medical beneficence, nonmaleficence, and patients’ well-being. The Journal of Clinical Ethics. 2022;33(1):23–28.
20. Tucak I., Vinković M. Arguments for and against the introduction of compulsory vaccination for health care workers. InterEULawEast. 2022;9(1):1–32. doi:10.22598/iele.2022.9.1.1
21. Felthous A.R. The medical ethics of hospitalizing inmates with severe mental illness. Ethics, Medicine and Public Health. 2016;2(1):127–134. doi:10.1016/j.jemep.2016.01.009
22. Niveau G., Welle I. Forensic psychiatry, one subspecialty with two ethics? A systematic review. BMC Medical Ethics. 2018;19:1–10. doi:10.1186/s12910-018-0266-5
23. Louw J.M., Marcus T.S., Hugo J.F.M. Patientor person-centred practice in medicine? A review of concepts. African Journal of Primary Health Care and Family Medicine. 2017;9(1):1–7. doi:10.4102/phcfm.v9i1.1455
24. Acuña A.M.A., Moreno J.C.R., Neira J., Ribero O.F. Ethical principles and dilemmas in the discourse of healthcare practitioners involved with end-of-life care based on the advanced directives document. Colombian Journal of Anesthesiology. 2023;51(1):1–11. doi:10.5554/22562087.e1046
25. Kayser J.B., Mooney-Doyle K., Lanken P.N. Definitions and policy. ERS Monograph. 2016;1–20. doi:10.1183/2312508X.10008216
26. Fadda M., Fiordelli M., Amati R., Falvo I., Ibnidris A., Hurst S., et al. Returning individual-specific results of a dementia prevalence study: insights from prospective participants living in Switzerland. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry. 2021;36:207–214. doi:10.1002/gps.5416
27. Hirsch A. Well-being – more than health? Ethik in der Medizin. 2021;33(1):71–88. doi:10.1007/s00481-021-00608-3
28. Robertson D.W. Ethical theory, ethnography, and differences between doctors and nurses in approaches to patient care. Journal of Medical Ethics. 1996;22(5):292–299. doi:10.1136/jme.22.5.292
29. Raus K., Mortier E., Eeckloo K. The patient perspective in health care networks. BMC Medical Ethics. 2018;19:1–8. doi:10.1186/s12910-018-0298-x
30. Schultz B.N., Tolchin B., Kraschel K.L. The “rules of the road”: ethics, firearms, and the physician’s “lane”. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics. 2020;48(4_suppl):142–145. doi:10.1177/1073110520979415
31. McCullough L.B., Coverdale J., Chervenak F.A. Teaching professional formation in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Academic Medicine. 2020;95:1488–1491. doi:10.1097/ACM.0000000000003434
32. Reisman E.C. Ethical issues confronting nurses. Nursing Clinics of North America. 1988;23(4):789– 802.
33. Macklin R. Applying the four principles. Journal of Medical Ethics. 2003;29:275–280.
34. Chervenak F.A., McCullough L.B., Skupski D., Chasen S.T. Ethical issues in the management of pregnancies complicated by fetal anomalies. Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey. 2003;58(7):473–483. doi:10.1097/01.OGX.0000071485.75220.AE
35. Rosner F. Ethical dilemmas for physicians in time of war. Israel Medical Association Journal. 2010;12(3):133–135.
36. Bates R. A critical analysis of evaluation practice: the Kirkpatrick model and the principle of beneficence. Evaluation and Program Planning. 2004;(27)3:341–347. doi:10.1016/j.evalprog-plan.2004.04.011
37. Solimini R., Busardò F.P., Gibelli F, Sirignano A., Ricci G. Ethical and legal challenges of telemedicine in the era of the COVID-19 pandemic. Medicina (Kaunas). 2021;30;57(12):1314. doi:10.3390/medicina57121314
38. Bouquet F. Ethical evaluation of biomedical research. Annali dell’Istituto Superiore di Sanità. 1998;34(2):197–201.
39. Nnate D.A. Treatment withdrawal of the patient at end of life: an analysis of values, ethics and guidelines in palliative care. Nursing Open. 2021;8(3):1023–1029. doi:10.1002/nop2.777
40. Bourret R., Vialla F., Martinez E. The principle of autonomy in the opinions of the National Consultative Ethics Committee: what are the limits? Médecine & Droit. 2015;133:90–98. doi:10.1016/j.meddro.2015.01.002
41. Ezeome I.V. Gamete donation – a review of ethical and legal issues. African Journal of Reproductive Health. 2022;26(3):1–10. doi:10.29063/ajrh2022/v26i3.14
42. Akard T.F., Gilmer M.J., Hendricks-Ferguson V.L. Ethical considerations in oncology and palliative care research during COVID-19. Journal of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology Nursing. 2022;39(3):178–184. doi:10.1177/27527530221073298
43. Keown J. The logical link between voluntary and non-voluntary euthanasia. Cambridge Law Journal. 2022;81(1):84–108. doi:10.1017/S0008197321001057
44. Murphy M. Exploring the ethics of a nurses’ strike during a pandemic. American Journal of Nursing. 2022;122(3):49–54. doi:10.1097/01.NAJ.0000823000.39601.b1
45. Sabin J.E., Cocoros N.M., Garcia C., Goldsack J.C., Haynes K., Lin N.D., et al. Bystander ethics and Good Samaritanism: a paradox for learning health organizations. Hastings Center Report. 2019;49:18–26. doi:10.1002/hast.1031
Review
For citations:
Quezada Castro G.A., Quezada Castro M., Castro Arellano M., Quezada Castro J.E., Barturen Mondragón E.M. The philanthropic model of scientific knowledge dissemination: a historical and ethical analysis (1982–2024). The Education and science journal. 2026;28(6):61-78. https://doi.org/10.17853/1994-5639-2026-6-61-78
Views:
198
JATS XML
Email this article 