TY - JOUR T1 - How overstated scientific claims undermine ethical principles in parenting interventions JF - BMJ Global Health JO - BMJ Global Health DO - 10.1136/bmjgh-2021-007323 VL - 6 IS - 9 SP - e007323 AU - Gabriel Scheidecker AU - Seth Oppong AU - Nandita Chaudhary AU - Heidi Keller Y1 - 2021/09/01 UR - http://gh.bmj.com/content/6/9/e007323.abstract N2 - Summary boxThe scientific constructs, standards and findings used to guide parenting interventions are overwhelmingly based on research in Euro-American settings, resulting in a Western bias when applied to communities in low/middle-income countries.Ignoring this Western bias and overstating scientific evidence is a major obstacle to the fulfilment of ethical principles in parenting interventions because it fosters the imposition of external standards and prevents full recognition of local ways, needs and strengths that are known to be ecologically adaptive and socially valuable.We conclude that there is an urgent need to raise awareness for the Western biases in existing early childhood development research in order to increase sensitivity to local ways of childrearing that are different but not necessarily deficient, and to foster research that specifically tackles these weaknesses.Parenting interventions in LMICs need to carefully consider existing practices, beliefs and developmental goals in the targeted communities to ensure that ethical principles of beneficence, autonomy and justice are fulfilled.While parenting interventions are flourishing in low/middle-income countries (LMICs), their ethical challenges have rarely been considered. We therefore applaud Weber and colleagues1 for their contribution to a recent debate about the ethics of parenting interventions.2 3 To apply the principles of beneficence, autonomy and justice to such interventions is certainly valuable, especially if ‘respect for autonomy’ includes consideration of additional ethical principles the targeted communities uphold. We also agree that ‘recognising and integrating existing beliefs, practices, people, context and skills’1 in the programme design is crucial to fulfil the three principles. Finally, we agree most emphatically that there are considerable biases in the underlying research as it tends to ‘only measure constructs that are valued from a western perspective’.1 However, it is our contention that the authors fail to apply these insights to the science on which they build … ER -