Chunk #74 — PART II. CORE QUESTIONS — F. What is the Content of those Responsibilities? Four Issues and Who Should Address Them — Step 1: Clarifying the criteria and roster
In our earlier project’s paper, we included some findings of reproductive importance among those that should be offered back to contributor.1 These were findings that offspring would bear a substantial risk of a serious health condition, when the finding could be used to ameliorate the condition or avoid the risk. Including reproductive importance among the criteria warranting return of IFs and IRRs is more controversial than restricting “should return” to findings bearing on the individual’s own health risk. The subsequent Fabsitz et al. paper treats reproductive importance as a criterion for discretionary return rather than recommended return (the researcher “may” return, rather than “should” return). That paper similarly treats personal meaning or utility as an occasion for discretionary return.
