New Genetics and Society最新文献

Biological kin share up to half of their genetic material, including predisposition to disease. Thus, variants of clinical significance identified in each individual's genome can implicate an exponential number of relatives at potential risk. This has renewed the dilemma over family access to research participant's genetic results, since prevailing U.S. practices treat these as private, controlled by the individual. These individual-based ethics contrast with the family-based ethics- in which genetic information, privacy, and autonomy are considered to be familial- endorsed in UK genomic medicine and by participants in a multi-method study of U.S. research participants presented here. The dilemma reflects a conflict between U.S. legal and ethical frameworks that privilege "the individual" and exclude "the family" versus actual human genetics that are simultaneously individual and familial. Can human genetics succeed in challenging bioethics' hegemonic individualism to recognize and place the family at the center of the room where bioethics happens?

Genomic Tumour Testing (GTT) is an emerging site of "experimental care" in oncology [Cambrosio, Alberto, Peter Keating, Etienne Vignola-Gagné, Sylvain Besle, and Pascale Bourret. 2018a. "Extending Experimentation: Oncology's Fading Boundary Bbetween Research and Care." New Genetics and Society 37 (3): 207-226. doi: 10.1080/14636778.2018.1487281]. Few efforts to implement GTT have reached community oncology practices or patients living in rural communities within the US. Drawing on interdisciplinary research on a state-wide cancer genomics initiative in the rural US state of Maine, this paper explores the valuation practices within community oncologist and cancer stakeholders accounts of "doing good" within genomic science and care. We contribute to STS literatures on the bio-economy by highlighting the affective dimensions of strategies for managing economic and non-economic values. Clinician and stakeholders negotiated de-economizing and capitalizing modes of doing good as they built local genomic platforms "for Maine." These situated modes of doing good and feeling good via cancer genomics shaped how they navigated the ethical ambiguities of US biomedical markets across the boundaries of research and care.

The perspectives of genomic citizen scientists on ownership of research outputs are not well understood, yet they are useful for identifying alignment of participant expectations and project practices and can help guide efforts to develop innovative tools and strategies for managing ownership claims. Here, we report findings from 52 interviews conducted in 2018 and 2019 to understand genomic citizen science stakeholders' conceptualizations of, experiences with, and preferences for ownership of research outputs. Interviewees identified four approaches for recognizing genomic citizen scientists' ownership and related credit interests in research outputs: shared governance via commons models; fractional ownership of benefits; full and creative attribution; and offensive and defensive patenting. Interviewees also agreed that the model selected by any project should at least maximize access to research outputs and, as appropriate and to the extent possible, broadly distribute rights of control and entitlements to research benefits.

Adaptive pragmatic clinical trials offer an innovative approach that integrates clinical care and research. Yet, blurring the boundaries between research and clinical care raises questions about how clinicians and investigators balance their caregiving and research roles and what types of knowledge and risk assessment are most valued. This paper presents findings from an ethnographic ELSI (Ethical, Legal, Social Implications) study of an innovative clinical trial of risk-based breast cancer screening that utilizes genomics to stratify risk and recommend a breast cancer screening commensurate with the assessed risk. We argue that the trial demonstrates a fundamental tension between the promissory ideals of personalized medicine, and the reality of implementing risk stratified care on a population scale. We examine the development of a Screening Assignment Review Board in response to this tension which allows clinician-investigators to negotiate, but never fully resolve, the inherent contradiction of 'precision population screening'.

Addressing health disparities has become a central remit for conducting health research. In the following paper, we explore the conceptual and methodological challenges posed by the call to recruit medically underserved populations. This exploration of challenges is undertaken from the perspective of social science researchers embedded in a large within a clinical genomics research study. We suggest that these challenges are found in respect to the development of recruiting strategies, analysis of the data in respect to understanding and interpreting the experiences of being medically underserved, and in comparing the experiences of being medically underserved compared to not being underserved. By way of conclusion, it is argued that there is important role for social scientists with large health research studies which, if achieved successfully, can benefit study teams and society as a whole.