Pub Date : 2021-09-01DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780197550731.003.0005
J. Hochschild
Chapter 5 examines the remaining two cells in the basic framework: “Hope,” about developing social programs separate from genetic influence, and “Rejection,” emphasizing the hubris of both genetic science and social programming. For each viewpoint, this chapter explores arenas within medical and scientific research (including environmental causes of and cures for disease, and personal choice), criminal justice (including predictive models, epigenetics, and environmental or personal causes), and biogeographical DNA testing (largely rejected except through traditional genealogy in both cells). Chapter 5 provides evidence to support both hope about understanding causes of individual or societal problems and policy interventions to solve them, and the conviction that policy interventions will be a waste of time or actually harmful.
{"title":"Hope and Rejection","authors":"J. Hochschild","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780197550731.003.0005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197550731.003.0005","url":null,"abstract":"Chapter 5 examines the remaining two cells in the basic framework: “Hope,” about developing social programs separate from genetic influence, and “Rejection,” emphasizing the hubris of both genetic science and social programming. For each viewpoint, this chapter explores arenas within medical and scientific research (including environmental causes of and cures for disease, and personal choice), criminal justice (including predictive models, epigenetics, and environmental or personal causes), and biogeographical DNA testing (largely rejected except through traditional genealogy in both cells). Chapter 5 provides evidence to support both hope about understanding causes of individual or societal problems and policy interventions to solve them, and the conviction that policy interventions will be a waste of time or actually harmful.","PeriodicalId":429620,"journal":{"name":"Genomic Politics","volume":"26 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122629932","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-09-01DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780197550731.003.0006
J. Hochschild
Chapter 6 examines how various categories of experts fit in the quadrants of the basic framework, and why. It uses three sources of evidence: a coded database of almost 2,000 genomics-related articles by legal scholars and social scientists in thirteen disciplines; two online, open-ended surveys of several hundred social science experts who responded to questions organized around the basic framework; and almost sixty in-person, open-ended interviews with genomics experts, many in positions of public authority. The chapter shows that the most methodologically individualist and most scientific social science disciplines are especially likely to fall into the “Enthusiastic” quadrant, whereas the most humanistic are least likely to do so. Individual experts range across the cells of the basic typology, with views ultimately resting on judgments about humans’ capacity to learn and to act for the good of others.
{"title":"Locating Experts in the Basic Framework","authors":"J. Hochschild","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780197550731.003.0006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197550731.003.0006","url":null,"abstract":"Chapter 6 examines how various categories of experts fit in the quadrants of the basic framework, and why. It uses three sources of evidence: a coded database of almost 2,000 genomics-related articles by legal scholars and social scientists in thirteen disciplines; two online, open-ended surveys of several hundred social science experts who responded to questions organized around the basic framework; and almost sixty in-person, open-ended interviews with genomics experts, many in positions of public authority. The chapter shows that the most methodologically individualist and most scientific social science disciplines are especially likely to fall into the “Enthusiastic” quadrant, whereas the most humanistic are least likely to do so. Individual experts range across the cells of the basic typology, with views ultimately resting on judgments about humans’ capacity to learn and to act for the good of others.","PeriodicalId":429620,"journal":{"name":"Genomic Politics","volume":"9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124753639","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-09-01DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780197550731.003.0004
J. Hochschild
Chapter 4 examines two of the cells in the basic framework: “Enthusiasm” about the benefits of using the science of genetic inheritance, and “Skepticism” about the risks of using the science of genetic inheritance. For each viewpoint, this chapter explores arenas within medical and scientific research (including gene therapy, the search for Covid-19 vaccines, and gene editing), criminal justice (including forensic DNA databases, rapid DNA testing, and exoneration), and biogeographical ancestry (including racial and ethnic ancestry testing, race-based medicine, and deep ancestry). Chapter 4 provides evidence to support both excitement about the benefits of genomic science and concern about its risks and costs.
{"title":"Enthusiasm and Skepticism","authors":"J. Hochschild","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780197550731.003.0004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197550731.003.0004","url":null,"abstract":"Chapter 4 examines two of the cells in the basic framework: “Enthusiasm” about the benefits of using the science of genetic inheritance, and “Skepticism” about the risks of using the science of genetic inheritance. For each viewpoint, this chapter explores arenas within medical and scientific research (including gene therapy, the search for Covid-19 vaccines, and gene editing), criminal justice (including forensic DNA databases, rapid DNA testing, and exoneration), and biogeographical ancestry (including racial and ethnic ancestry testing, race-based medicine, and deep ancestry). Chapter 4 provides evidence to support both excitement about the benefits of genomic science and concern about its risks and costs.","PeriodicalId":429620,"journal":{"name":"Genomic Politics","volume":"60 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128748467","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-09-01DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780197550731.003.0003
J. Hochschild
In the contemporary United States, most important societal disputes have become politicized, with the result that there are Republican and Democratic positions to which partisans largely adhere. Interestingly, that is not the case for societal uses of genomic science; controversies surrounding genomics are largely nonpartisan, or its uses are not even considered controversial. Chapter 3 demonstrates this unusual pattern by examining American elected officials’ unanimous support for forensic DNA databases and their silence on scientific DNA databases, the lack of partisanship in legislation and funding for genomics research, and the absence of controversy in the courts around genomics.
{"title":"Disputes over Genomic Science Are Not Partisan","authors":"J. Hochschild","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780197550731.003.0003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197550731.003.0003","url":null,"abstract":"In the contemporary United States, most important societal disputes have become politicized, with the result that there are Republican and Democratic positions to which partisans largely adhere. Interestingly, that is not the case for societal uses of genomic science; controversies surrounding genomics are largely nonpartisan, or its uses are not even considered controversial. Chapter 3 demonstrates this unusual pattern by examining American elected officials’ unanimous support for forensic DNA databases and their silence on scientific DNA databases, the lack of partisanship in legislation and funding for genomics research, and the absence of controversy in the courts around genomics.","PeriodicalId":429620,"journal":{"name":"Genomic Politics","volume":"42 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132383581","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-09-01DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780197550731.003.0008
J. Hochschild
Chapter 8 uses the GKAP surveys, expert surveys, and interviews to examine views about governance of genomics technologies. Experts collectively offer long lists of appropriate and inappropriate governing bodies; they show little convergence. Interview subjects also offer diverse views on genomics governance, but mostly agree that government actors and medical professionals are not suited to it. The public generally endorses forensic DNA databases and their governance, has mixed views on medical research involving genetics, and is cautious about gene editing, especially germline. Americans express little confidence in any potential governing actor, but they trust families and doctors somewhat more than community forums, clergy, or public officials. There is little partisan division, some racial division, and mostly division by quadrants of the basic framework.
{"title":"Who Should Govern?","authors":"J. Hochschild","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780197550731.003.0008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197550731.003.0008","url":null,"abstract":"Chapter 8 uses the GKAP surveys, expert surveys, and interviews to examine views about governance of genomics technologies. Experts collectively offer long lists of appropriate and inappropriate governing bodies; they show little convergence. Interview subjects also offer diverse views on genomics governance, but mostly agree that government actors and medical professionals are not suited to it. The public generally endorses forensic DNA databases and their governance, has mixed views on medical research involving genetics, and is cautious about gene editing, especially germline. Americans express little confidence in any potential governing actor, but they trust families and doctors somewhat more than community forums, clergy, or public officials. There is little partisan division, some racial division, and mostly division by quadrants of the basic framework.","PeriodicalId":429620,"journal":{"name":"Genomic Politics","volume":"57 9","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133018469","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-09-01DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780197550731.003.0007
J. Hochschild
Relying on two surveys of randomly selected American adults, Chapter 7 first locates the American public within the basic framework’s four quadrants. The surveys—Genomics: Knowledge, Attitudes, and Policies 1 (GKAP 1), and GKAP 2—were conducted in 2011 and 2017, respectively. Both are stratified by race and ethnicity; GKAP 1 includes almost 4,000 respondents and GKAP 2 includes almost 2,000. Survey items address perceptions of genetic influence and levels of technology optimism; in combination, these items enable respondents to be located in the four cells. Chapter 7 then explores demographic characteristics of individuals in particular cells, and views as revealed through coded responses to open-ended questions. Key findings include: about three-fifths of Americans are Enthusiatic; genetics knowledge is associated with Enthusiasm; racial or partisan differences have little impact on quadrant location; the Hopeful and especially Enthusiasts are committed to medical research or to criminal justice; Skeptics are mistrustful and protective of privacy; Rejecters seek withdrawal and self-protection.
{"title":"Locating the Public in the Basic Framework","authors":"J. Hochschild","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780197550731.003.0007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197550731.003.0007","url":null,"abstract":"Relying on two surveys of randomly selected American adults, Chapter 7 first locates the American public within the basic framework’s four quadrants. The surveys—Genomics: Knowledge, Attitudes, and Policies 1 (GKAP 1), and GKAP 2—were conducted in 2011 and 2017, respectively. Both are stratified by race and ethnicity; GKAP 1 includes almost 4,000 respondents and GKAP 2 includes almost 2,000. Survey items address perceptions of genetic influence and levels of technology optimism; in combination, these items enable respondents to be located in the four cells. Chapter 7 then explores demographic characteristics of individuals in particular cells, and views as revealed through coded responses to open-ended questions. Key findings include: about three-fifths of Americans are Enthusiatic; genetics knowledge is associated with Enthusiasm; racial or partisan differences have little impact on quadrant location; the Hopeful and especially Enthusiasts are committed to medical research or to criminal justice; Skeptics are mistrustful and protective of privacy; Rejecters seek withdrawal and self-protection.","PeriodicalId":429620,"journal":{"name":"Genomic Politics","volume":"32 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121872355","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-08-19DOI: 10.1142/9789814407663_0001
J. Hochschild
Chapter 2 presents the theoretical framework for the book: a 2 × 2 typology that can help us understand the controversies surrounding genomics. The vertical dimension ranges from a perception that genetic inheritance strongly affects important human phenotypes to a perception that important human phenotypes are affected not by genetic inheritance but rather by environmental context, family and background, free choice, a deity’s will, or luck. The horizontal dimension ranges from technology optimism—a view that the gains from innovation can outweigh its harms—to the opposite, technology pessimism. The two dimensions jointly create four cells: “Enthusiasm,” focusing on the benefits of using the science of genetic influence, “Skepticism,” focusing on the risks of using the science of genetic influence, “Hope,” focusing on developing social improvements through means other than genetic influence, and “Rejection,” which highlights the hubris of both genetic science and social programming.
{"title":"The Basic Framework","authors":"J. Hochschild","doi":"10.1142/9789814407663_0001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1142/9789814407663_0001","url":null,"abstract":"Chapter 2 presents the theoretical framework for the book: a 2 × 2 typology that can help us understand the controversies surrounding genomics. The vertical dimension ranges from a perception that genetic inheritance strongly affects important human phenotypes to a perception that important human phenotypes are affected not by genetic inheritance but rather by environmental context, family and background, free choice, a deity’s will, or luck. The horizontal dimension ranges from technology optimism—a view that the gains from innovation can outweigh its harms—to the opposite, technology pessimism. The two dimensions jointly create four cells: “Enthusiasm,” focusing on the benefits of using the science of genetic influence, “Skepticism,” focusing on the risks of using the science of genetic influence, “Hope,” focusing on developing social improvements through means other than genetic influence, and “Rejection,” which highlights the hubris of both genetic science and social programming.","PeriodicalId":429620,"journal":{"name":"Genomic Politics","volume":"6 1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116660671","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-08-19DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780197550731.003.0009
J. Hochschild
There is no most-compelling approach for governing genomics technologies, There are several possibilities: Governance may be top-down from experts to the public; it may be sideways, through advocacy groups for particular issues; or it may be bottom-up, resulting from an incident or political framing that engages the public. It may, alternatively, not occur much at all, or be dispersed across many separate arena. Many experts see particular genomics arenas as distinct and requiring separate governance structures, while the public mostly sees its possibilities and risks as a unified whole. A further complication is that residents of each quadrant typically prefer different governance structures, although Enthusiasts and the Hopeful, and (separately) Skeptics and Rejecters, agree more than other pairings. Author Jennifer Hochschild explains why she fits more into the Enthusiasm cell than the others. She reasons that excessive caution about what might go wrong makes innovations in societal and individual benefits difficult to achieve, that genomic scientists are ethically sophisticated and capable of learning to mitigate problems, and that concern about risks tends to be abstract and focused on possibilities, whereas benefits tend to be concrete and demonstrable. Nonetheless, however governance moves forward, it will need to monitor possibilities for racial, class, or genetic discrimination.
{"title":"Governing Genomics","authors":"J. Hochschild","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780197550731.003.0009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197550731.003.0009","url":null,"abstract":"There is no most-compelling approach for governing genomics technologies, There are several possibilities: Governance may be top-down from experts to the public; it may be sideways, through advocacy groups for particular issues; or it may be bottom-up, resulting from an incident or political framing that engages the public. It may, alternatively, not occur much at all, or be dispersed across many separate arena. Many experts see particular genomics arenas as distinct and requiring separate governance structures, while the public mostly sees its possibilities and risks as a unified whole. A further complication is that residents of each quadrant typically prefer different governance structures, although Enthusiasts and the Hopeful, and (separately) Skeptics and Rejecters, agree more than other pairings. Author Jennifer Hochschild explains why she fits more into the Enthusiasm cell than the others. She reasons that excessive caution about what might go wrong makes innovations in societal and individual benefits difficult to achieve, that genomic scientists are ethically sophisticated and capable of learning to mitigate problems, and that concern about risks tends to be abstract and focused on possibilities, whereas benefits tend to be concrete and demonstrable. Nonetheless, however governance moves forward, it will need to monitor possibilities for racial, class, or genetic discrimination.","PeriodicalId":429620,"journal":{"name":"Genomic Politics","volume":"35 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133426519","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：