Groups as Gatekeepers to Genomic Research: Conceptually Confusing, Morally Hazardous, and Practically Useless
Author(s)
Juengst, Eric T.Keywords
AutonomyCommunity Consent
Cultural Pluralism
Consent
Decision Making
Discrimination
Epidemiology
Eugenics
Genetic Diversity
Genetic Research
Genetics
Genome
Genomics
Genetic Screening
Human Experimentation
Human Genome
Human Genome Diversity Project
Informed Consent
International Aspects
Minority Groups
Population Genetics
Research
Research Design
Research Subjects
Self Concept
Vulnerable Populations
Full record
Show full item recordOnline Access
http://worldcatlibraries.org/registry/gateway?version=1.0&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&atitle=Groups+as+Gatekeepers+to+Genomic+Research:+Conceptually+Confusing,+morally+Hazardous,+and+Practically+Useless&title=Kennedy+Institute+of+Ethics+Journal.++&volume=8&issue=2&pages=183-200&date=1998&au=Juengst,+Eric+T.https://dx.doi.org/10.1353/ken.1998.0010
http://hdl.handle.net/10822/752182
Abstract
Some argue that human groups have a stake in the outcome of population-genomics research and that the decision to participate in such research should therefore be subject to group permission. It is not possible, however, to obtain prior group permission, because the actual human groups under study, human demes, are unidentifiable before research begins. Moreover, they lack moral standing. If identifiable social groups with moral standing are used as proxies for demes, group approval could be sought, but at the expense of unfairly exposing these surrogates to risks from which prior group approval is powerless to protect them. Unless population genomics can proceed without targeting socially defined groups, or can find other ways of protecting them, it may fall to individuals to protect the interests of the groups they care about, and to scientists to warn their subjects of the need to do so.Date
2015-05-05Identifier
oai:repository.library.georgetown.edu:10822/75218210.1353/ken.1998.0010
Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal. 1998 Jun; 8(2): 183-200.
1054-6863
http://worldcatlibraries.org/registry/gateway?version=1.0&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&atitle=Groups+as+Gatekeepers+to+Genomic+Research:+Conceptually+Confusing,+morally+Hazardous,+and+Practically+Useless&title=Kennedy+Institute+of+Ethics+Journal.++&volume=8&issue=2&pages=183-200&date=1998&au=Juengst,+Eric+T.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/ken.1998.0010
http://hdl.handle.net/10822/752182
Collections
Related items
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
-
Al-Wasf Al-Shar'i Li Al-Jinum Al-Bashari Wa Al-'Ilaj Al-JiniNashmi, 'ajil (2016-01-08)This paper was submitted to the symposium held by the Islamic Organization for Medical Sciences (IOMS) in Kuwait during the period 13-15 October 1998 on genetics. The paper starts with introductory notes on the importance of science in building up civilizations. The author views that scientific research on genetics is one of the most important scientific achievements in the modern time. He concludes that the Islamic religio-ethical perspective on the Human Genome Project (HGP) and gene therapy should be developed on the basis of evaluating both their risks and benefits.
-
Indigenous Peoples and the Morality of the Human Genome Diversity ProjectDodson, Michael; Williamson, Robert (2015-05-05)In addition to the aim of mapping and sequencing one human's genome, the Human Genome Project also intends to characterise the genetic diversity of the world's peoples. The Human Genome Diversity Project raises political, economic and ethical issues. These intersect clearly when the genomes under study are those of indigenous peoples who are already subject to serious economic, legal and/or social disadvantage and discrimination. The fact that some individuals associated with the project have made dismissive comments about indigenous peoples has confused rather than illuminated the deeper issues involved, as well as causing much antagonism among indigenous peoples. There are more serious ethical issues raised by the project for all geneticists, including those who are sympathetic to the problems of indigenous peoples. With particular attention to the history and attitudes of Australian indigenous peoples, we argue that the Human Genome Diversity Project can only proceed if those who further its objectives simultaneously: respect the cultural beliefs of indigenous peoples; publicly support the efforts of indigenous peoples to achieve respect and equality; express respect by a rigorous understanding of the meaning of equitable negotiation of consent, and ensure that both immediate and long term economic benefits from the research flow back to the groups taking part.
-
Patient privacy in the genomic era.Raisaro, J.L.; Ayday, E.; Hubaux, J.P. (2014-05-07)According to many scientists and clinicians, genomics is taking on a key role in the field of medicine. Impressive advances in genome sequencing have opened the way to a variety of revolutionary applications in modern healthcare. In particular, the increasing understanding of the human genome, and of its relation to diseases and response to treatments brings promise of improvements in better preventive and personalized medicine. However, this progress raises important privacy and ethical concerns that need to be addressed. Indeed, each genome is the ultimate identifier of its owner and, due to its nature, it contains highly personal and privacy-sensitive data. In this article, after summarizing recent advances in genomics, we discuss some important privacy issues associated with human genomic information and methods put in place to address them.