ORCID Profile
0000-0002-9067-7108
Current Organisations
University of Queensland
,
CSIRO
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 02-2019
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 04-2018
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 06-2018
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 25-09-2023
DOI: 10.1111/RISA.14229
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 11-01-2022
DOI: 10.1057/S41599-021-01028-W
Abstract: Incorporating perspectives of multiple stakeholders concerning the appropriate balance of risks and benefits of new and potentially disruptive technologies is thought to be a way of enhancing the societal relevance and positive impacts of those technologies. A risk governance approach can be instrumental in achieving balance among erse stakeholders, as it enables decision-making processes informed by multiple dimensions of risk. This paper applies a risk governance approach to retrospectively examine the development of nanotechnology research and development (R& D) in Australia to identify how risk governance is reflected in the practices of a range of stakeholders. We identify ten risk-related challenges specific to nanotechnology R& D based on a review of the international literature, which provided the foundation for documenting how those working in the Australian nanotechnology sector responded to these global risk-related challenges. This case study research draws on a range of sources including literature review, semi-structured interviews, and a combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches for data analysis to identify key themes and generate visualisations of the interconnections that exist between risk governance practices. The ability to visualise these interconnections from the qualitative data is a key contribution of this research. Our findings show how the qualitative insights and professional experiences of nanotechnologists provide evidence of how risk governance approaches have been operationalised in the Australian nanotechnology R& D sector. The findings generate three important insights. First, the risk research undertaken by Australian nanotechnologists is interdisciplinary and involves multiple stakeholders from various disciplines and sectors. Unlike traditional risk governance approaches, our findings document efforts to assess, not only physical risks, but also social and ethical risks. Second, nanotechnology risk governance is a non-linear process and practices undertaken to address specific challenges occurred concurrently with and contributed to addressing other challenges. Third, our findings indicate that applying a risk governance approach enables greater intersection and collaboration, potentially bridging any disconnect between scientists, policymakers, and the public to realise transdisciplinary outcomes. This research highlights opportunities for developing systematic methodologies to enable more robust risk governance of other new and emerging technologies.
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Date: 2014
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 12-2018
Publisher: CSIRO
Date: 2021
DOI: 10.25919/1CV0-PA77
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 09-2023
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 07-03-2022
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 11-01-2023
DOI: 10.1038/S41431-022-01273-W
Abstract: There are inherent complexities and tensions in achieving a responsible balance between safeguarding patients’ privacy and sharing genomic data for advancing health and medical science. A growing body of literature suggests establishing patient genomic data ownership, enabled by blockchain technology, as one approach for managing these priorities. We conducted an online survey, applying a mixed methods approach to collect quantitative (using scale questions) and qualitative data (using open-ended questions). We explored the views of 117 genomic professionals (clinical geneticists, genetic counsellors, bioinformaticians, and researchers) towards patient data ownership in Australia. Data analysis revealed most professionals agreed that patients have rights to data ownership. However, there is a need for a clearer understanding of the nature and implications of data ownership in this context as genomic data often is subject to collective ownership (e.g., with family members and laboratories). This research finds that while the majority of genomic professionals acknowledge the desire for patient data ownership, bioinformaticians and researchers expressed more favourable views than clinical geneticists and genetic counsellors, suggesting that their views on this issue may be shaped by how closely they interact with patients as part of their professional duties. This research also confirms that stronger health system infrastructure is a prerequisite for enabling patient data ownership, which needs to be underpinned by appropriate digital infrastructure (e.g., central vs. decentralised data storage), patient identity ownership (e.g., limited vs. self-sovereign identity), and policy at both federal and state levels.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 06-2023
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 03-2019
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 03-2018
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 09-11-2020
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 08-2019
Publisher: CSIRO
Date: 2020
Publisher: CSIRO
Date: 2020
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 11-2016
Location: Australia
No related grants have been discovered for Yuwan Malakar.