Fatos Selita, R. Chapman, Y. Kovas, Vanessa Smereczynska, M. Likhanov, Teemu Toivainen
{"title":"Consensus too soon: judges’ and lawyers’ views on genetic information use","authors":"Fatos Selita, R. Chapman, Y. Kovas, Vanessa Smereczynska, M. Likhanov, Teemu Toivainen","doi":"10.1080/14636778.2023.2197583","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Timely effective regulation of genetic advances presents a challenge for justice systems. We used a 51-item battery to examine views on major genetics-related issues of those at the forefront of regulating this area – Supreme Court judges ( N = 73). We also compared their views with those of other justice stakeholders ( N = 210) from the same country (Romania). Judges showed greater endorsement and less variability in views on the use of genetic data and technologies than the other groups. The agreement among the judges was strikingly strong for some controversial issues, including gene editing; patenting of genetic fi ndings; and the State using genetic information for crime prevention. Judges and other lawyers recognized the need for amending the relevant laws. Without appropriate regulation, genetic science has a risk of propelling inequality rather than ful fi lling its promise to improve people ’ s lives.","PeriodicalId":54724,"journal":{"name":"New Genetics and Society","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"New Genetics and Society","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14636778.2023.2197583","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
Timely effective regulation of genetic advances presents a challenge for justice systems. We used a 51-item battery to examine views on major genetics-related issues of those at the forefront of regulating this area – Supreme Court judges ( N = 73). We also compared their views with those of other justice stakeholders ( N = 210) from the same country (Romania). Judges showed greater endorsement and less variability in views on the use of genetic data and technologies than the other groups. The agreement among the judges was strikingly strong for some controversial issues, including gene editing; patenting of genetic fi ndings; and the State using genetic information for crime prevention. Judges and other lawyers recognized the need for amending the relevant laws. Without appropriate regulation, genetic science has a risk of propelling inequality rather than ful fi lling its promise to improve people ’ s lives.
期刊介绍：
New Genetics and Society: Critical Studies of Contemporary Biosciences is a world-leading journal which:
-Provides a focus for interdisciplinary and multi-disciplinary, leading-edge social science research on the new genetics and related biosciences;
-Publishes theoretical and empirical contributions reflecting its multi-faceted development;
-Provides an international platform for critical reflection and debate;
-Is an invaluable research resource for the many related professions, including health, medicine and the law, wishing to keep abreast of fast changing developments in contemporary biosciences.
New Genetics and Society publishes papers on the social aspects of the new genetics (widely defined), including gene editing, genomics, proteomics, epigenetics and systems biology; and the rapidly developing biosciences such as biomedical and reproductive therapies and technologies, xenotransplantation, stem cell research and neuroscience. Our focus is on developing a better understanding of the social, legal, ethical and policy aspects, including their local and global management and organisation.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
