Should a finding you would rather not know be disclosed?
2026NowDeadline · Within 30 days before data analysis resumes
Realistic synthesis
The people, events, figures, and contract terms are a synthetic premise. They are not statements of real cases or of current law. The source documents are the roots of the background and the norms and do not establish the premises of the scenario.
The question to decide
A clue found outside the study's purpose has no confirmed clinical meaning yet. Participants differ in how much they want to know. Should we disclose broadly, including uncertain information, convey only verifiable items, or seek consent again and let each person choose what they receive?
Who decidesFictional research participant and ethics joint meeting
What the AI judgments chose
Reading the judgment record…
The options
The order shown is not a ranking of preference.
The situation as it stands
Clues outside the original purpose have surfaced in the research data, but the meaning of the research-use results has not been confirmed clinically. Decision deadline: within 30 days, before data analysis resumes.
2026 synthetic scenario · How far to disclose a participant's incidental research finding. The people, organizations, figures, and events are fictional.
- Premise 1Clues outside the original purpose have surfaced in the research data, but the meaning of the research-use results has not been confirmed clinically.
- Premise 2The original consent form is vague about how to handle incidental findings.
- Premise 3Among the participants, some want all information and some want the right not to know.
Where it holdsConfirmation, notification, and withdrawal of findings outside the research scope
What is still unknown
- Unknown 1Items that can be verified separately and their cost
- Unknown 2How participants understand the right not to know
- Unknown 3The scope of information that connects to relatives
Signals to decide again
- Decide what observation, owner, and confirmation channel will confirm 'items that can be verified separately and their cost,' and reconsider when a new confirmation changes the trade-offs of the options.
- Decide what observation, owner, and confirmation channel will confirm 'how participants understand the right not to know,' and reconsider when a new confirmation changes the trade-offs of the options.
- Decide what observation, owner, and confirmation channel will confirm 'the scope of information that connects to relatives,' and reconsider when a new confirmation changes the trade-offs of the options.
Where the paths partNot answers — paths that part from the same starting point
The verification body stated that some clues cannot be given definitive meaning with current methods.
A participant requested that they not be informed while their family be informed.
Material and rootsThe frame, the values and the background documents
How does the expansion of healing change the community's promises about distribution?
An exploratory perspective chosen by the creator. Does not claim supernatural validity or the superiority of any particular option.The benefits and costs of the options accrue to different stakeholders. Which loss to accept remains undecided.
A subject for the decision-maker to argue over; the materials carry no conclusion of their own.- WHO · Foresight Standing reference
- UNESCO · Ethics of Neurotechnology 2025
The record of this question
- Question
FSP-HEALTH-18· version 1.5.0- Content identity, SHA-256
2d977548b61faf1514ebb5ccda57aa8bb315f0461c8ffa0ad79dc59644fd41f0- Input files
- Question input JSON · What followed, JSON