Expanding the Agenda for a More Just Genomics

IF 2.3 3区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS Hastings Center Report Pub Date : 2024-12-21 DOI:10.1002/hast.4924
Deanne Dunbar Dolan, Danielle M. Pacia, Josephine Johnston, Sandra Soo-Jin Lee, Mildred K. Cho
{"title":"Expanding the Agenda for a More Just Genomics","authors":"Deanne Dunbar Dolan,&nbsp;Danielle M. Pacia,&nbsp;Josephine Johnston,&nbsp;Sandra Soo-Jin Lee,&nbsp;Mildred K. Cho","doi":"10.1002/hast.4924","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The integration of genomics into public health and medicine is happening at a faster rate than the accrual of the capabilities necessary to ensure the equitable, global distribution of its clinical benefits. Uneven access to genetic testing and follow-up care, unequal distribution of the resources required to access and participate in research, and underrepresentation of some descent groups in genetic and clinical datasets (and thus uncertain genetic results for some patients) are just some of the reasons to center justice in genomics. A more just genomics is an imperative rooted in the ethical obligations incurred by a publicly funded science that is reliant on human data. These features of genomics indebt the genomics enterprise and compel the expanded scope of responsibility proposed by the authors of this special report. The report begins to define justice in genomics for different stakeholder groups and proposes substantial shifts in power, resource distribution, scientific practice, and governance that could enable genomics to meet its obligations to humanity.</p>","PeriodicalId":55073,"journal":{"name":"Hastings Center Report","volume":"54 S2","pages":"S2-S13"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/hast.4924","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hastings Center Report","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hast.4924","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The integration of genomics into public health and medicine is happening at a faster rate than the accrual of the capabilities necessary to ensure the equitable, global distribution of its clinical benefits. Uneven access to genetic testing and follow-up care, unequal distribution of the resources required to access and participate in research, and underrepresentation of some descent groups in genetic and clinical datasets (and thus uncertain genetic results for some patients) are just some of the reasons to center justice in genomics. A more just genomics is an imperative rooted in the ethical obligations incurred by a publicly funded science that is reliant on human data. These features of genomics indebt the genomics enterprise and compel the expanded scope of responsibility proposed by the authors of this special report. The report begins to define justice in genomics for different stakeholder groups and proposes substantial shifts in power, resource distribution, scientific practice, and governance that could enable genomics to meet its obligations to humanity.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
扩大议程,实现更公正的基因组学
基因组学融入公共卫生和医学的速度超过了确保其临床益处在全球公平分配所需能力的积累速度。获得基因检测和后续护理的机会不平等,获取和参与研究所需资源的分配不平等,以及某些血统群体在遗传和临床数据集中的代表性不足(因此对某些患者的遗传结果不确定),这些只是将基因组学置于正义中心的部分原因。更公正的基因组学是一项必要的举措,它植根于依赖于人类数据的公共资助科学所产生的伦理义务。基因组学的这些特点给基因组学企业带来了债务,并迫使本特别报告的作者提出扩大责任范围。该报告开始为不同的利益相关者群体定义基因组学中的正义,并建议在权力、资源分配、科学实践和治理方面进行重大转变,从而使基因组学能够履行其对人类的义务。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Hastings Center Report
Hastings Center Report 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
3.00%
发文量
99
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Hastings Center Report explores ethical, legal, and social issues in medicine, health care, public health, and the life sciences. Six issues per year offer articles, essays, case studies of bioethical problems, columns on law and policy, caregivers’ stories, peer-reviewed scholarly articles, and book reviews. Authors come from an assortment of professions and academic disciplines and express a range of perspectives and political opinions. The Report’s readership includes physicians, nurses, scholars, administrators, social workers, health lawyers, and others.
期刊最新文献
Arguments and Analogies: Do Children Have a Right to Know Their Genetic Origins? In Defense of Post Hoc Explanations in Medical AI Benefits and Risks of Using AI Agents in Research What Does Moral Agency Mean for Nurses in the Era of Artificial Intelligence? Implications for All Animal Research
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1