Treffer: How to write a good embedded ethics letter.

AN0179967382;7v601oct.24;2024Oct01.05:30;v2.2.500

How to write a good embedded ethics letter 

I have argued in the journal that the letter is a forum to embed ethics into the research literature to strengthen responsibility of researchers (Daly, [3]). Here, I address how to write an effective letter, offering a recent example. I recommend a three-part structure and a clearly-stated title to highlight and address ethical issues raised by a recent scientific paper.

The first part involves setting the scene. This requires presenting the original article as objectively and descriptively as possible. It is worth directly citing the original authors to adequately capture their point of view. The next part is confrontation, i.e., raising the ethical issue(s) for consideration. If possible, the ethicist should cite existing and reputable literature to support their point as worthy of further discussion. This is where the text takes a normative and critical turn. The last part is resolution, with one eye on finding concrete solutions to the problem at hand, and the other on more general lessons for future scientific practice and ethical reflection. Having written the letter, the final aspect is arguably the most important: the title. This should be concise and yet provide enough of a window into the letter's content and argument, so that even if someone were not to read the letter, they would have some grasp of where the ethicist stands on the issue at hand.

For instance, take a recent letter of mine from the journal Alzheimer's and Dementia, "Amyloid PET-assisted diagnosis and improved outcomes: biomarkering or biomarketing?" (Daly, [2]). It was written in response to an observational study on Alzheimer's disease suggesting that simply receiving a positron emission tomography "PET" scan for brain amyloid (a disease biomarker) led to better outcomes, including reduced mortality, than in patients who did not (van Maurik et al. [4]). The authors argued that the scan "contributed to" such improvements, suggestive of a causal relationship. In my letter in response to their study, I follow the three-part structure. Firstly, I set the scene descriptively and argue that "the association is an interesting finding worthy of further investigation via randomized controlled trials." Then, I take a normative turn: "precocious and fallacious use of causal language smacks of an attempt to market amyloid PET-assisted diagnosis without a solid evidence base, with potentially harmful consequences for patients and research." Finally, I offer a solution, arguing that observational studies "ought to use more restrained language to avoid creating false hope and slowing down research."

By combining a clear title and a three-part structure in the letter format, ethicists can thus improve the real-time visibility of ethical arguments within the scientific literature and bolster the embedded ethics approach (Buedo et al. [1]).

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

By Timothy Daly

Reported by Author