Eugenics and the new genetics in Britain: examining contemporary professionals' accounts

Citizens under the umbrella: citizenship projects and the development of genetic umbrella organizations in the USA and the UK

Social scientists have observed previously that patient support groups began to have significant influence over both research and clinical services of medical genetics in the early 2000s. This observation led to the idea of genetic citizenship, suggesting that the active participation and intervention of patient support groups in the rapidly growing field of medicine marked the emergence of a new form of citizenship. To understand how this citizenship emerged, this paper examines the development of umbrella organizations of genetic support groups in the USA and the UK. The historical analysis demonstrates that the ways in which these organizations developed differ considerably, and that their visions and activities reflected the different structural and cultural organizations of medical genetics in their respective countries. By recognizing the early work of these organizations as citizenship projects, this article argues that they helped rather different forms of genetic citizenship to emerge in the two countries.

Fraught claims at the intersection of biology and sociality: Managing controversy in the neuroscience of poverty and adversity

In this article, I examine how a subfield of researchers studying the impact of poverty and adversity on the developing brain, cognitive abilities and mental health respond to criticism that their research is racist and eugenicist, and implies that affected children are broken on a biological level. My interviewees use a number of strategies to respond to these resurfacing criticisms. They maintain that the controversy rests upon a fundamental misunderstanding of their work. In addition, they use what I term 'plasticity talk', a form of anti-determinist discourse, to put forth what they believe is a hopeful conception of body and brain as fundamentally malleable. They draw attention to their explicit intentions to use scientific inquiry to mitigate inequality and further social justice - in fact, they believe their studies are powerful evidence that add to the literature on the social determinants of health. Though they may be interested in improving lives, they argue that their aims and means have little in common with programs trying to 'improve' the genetic stock of the population. I argue that theirs is a fraught research terrain, where any claims-making is potentially treacherous. Just as their studies of development refuse dualistic models, so too do their responses defy dichotomous categorization.

The Impact of Genetic Testing and Genetic Information on Ethical, Legal and Social Issues in North America

This chapter discusses the impact of genetic testing and genetic information. It proposes a framework that facilitates a critical analysis of the ethical, legal, and social issues of genetic testing. The ethical effects include privacy infringement, genetic discrimination, misleading advertisement, psychological impact, and individual autonomy. The legal impacts embrace consistent terminology, referral guidelines, patent wars, and new legislations. The social effects pertain to inequality, higher insurance fees, tax burden, and fear of new eugenics. Information and communication technologies dramatically augment the effect of genetic testing on these outcomes. This chapter argues that information and communication technologies and rapid advances in genetics challenge the existing legislation systems in North America. Therefore, policy-makers need to address the tension between the potential benefits and harms of genetic testing and genetic information.

Understanding the new human genetics: A review of scientific editorials

Developments in genetics are expected to have a profound impact on health and health care, yet much remains to be learned about how leaders of the research and clinical communities view and frame these expectations. We conducted a comprehensive review of editorials about developments in genetic medicine published in scientific journals, to understand what this elite group of commentators anticipate. Editorials are an important resource for understanding how the new genetics is understood and portrayed. They allow leaders of the research and clinical communities to communicate to each other and informed publics, and are a forum for the expression of widely shared elite beliefs and opinions. We analyzed selected editorials for content and metaphoric language to explore attitudes and expectations concerning developments in genetic science and technology. Our analysis suggests that a diverse group of leaders of the research and clinical communities are remarkably uniform in their discourse about the future of genetic medicine. Editorialists have great expectations for developments in basic science and in the comprehension and management of disease. They also anticipate important effects on health care, notably the health care professions, and on wider society. Yet editorialists do not discuss these prospects in a consistently positive or optimistic manner, and they utilize metaphoric imagery that emphasizes the inexorable nature of progress, and the sometimes ominous manner in which developments emerge. The dominant discourse of editorialists claims authority for clinicians and researchers and asserts a broad sphere of expertise, but it also positions these leaders as handmaidens of a science they do not control, and insists that their ultimate contribution is to prepare themselves and others for the inexorable march of progress.

Too many choices? Hospital and community staff reflect on the future of prenatal screening

Promoting informed choice is commonly recognised as the chief purpose and benefit of prenatal screening, its very presence being viewed as a key way in which the process can be distanced from eugenics. As the number of conditions and features which can potentially be screened for rises, dilemmas about how to achieve informed choice can only increase. Seventy hospital and community staff working in or attached to two English hospitals were interviewed individually on topics which included their views on genetic developments and moral beliefs and values, and how these affected their daily work. The majority then took part in small discussion groups led by an ethicist. The research identified a paradox. On the one hand, participants recognised the centrality of informed choice to prenatal screening, although they had many doubts about whether it could be achieved. On the other hand, most saw the expansion of screening, which might further compromise informed choice, as an inevitable and inexorable process over which they had little, if any, control. This was despite the fact that many of them decided, managed or implemented prenatal screening policies within their hospitals. The paper explores the factors which staff themselves identified as responsible for this perceived inevitable expansion. It then discusses more generally how the expansion of medical technologies can appear as inexorable to those involved. Finally, the paper calls for more inclusive, integrated and collaborative debate and research around the whole area of prenatal screening. This is to ensure that as far as possible, the wider consequences and implications of any proposed expansion to prenatal screening-both the promises and the potential side-effects-are debated ahead of their implementation, and also to help ensure that public policy represents and serves contemporary society.

Biofantasies: genetics and medicine in the print news media

The contemporary news media is an important site for exploring the diverse and complex cultural images of genetics and its medical possibilities, and of the mechanisms by which these images are (re) produced and sustained. This article investigates how the print news media 'frames' stories on genetics and medicine. It is based on a discourse analysis of articles appearing in three Australian newspapers in the late 1990s. Gene stories were found to be prominent in each of the newspapers, and to emphasise the medical benefits of genetic research. Stories frequently cite and quote scientists, who explain the nature and significance of the research and/or its implications for treatment or prevention. Many stories focus on new genetic discoveries, and portray genetic researchers as involved in a quest to unlock nature's secrets. Stories of hope, and depictions of geneticists as warriors or heroes, appear regularly. The positive vision of genetics is supported by the use of particular metaphors, accompanying illustrative material, 'human interest' stories, and reference to credible sources. There is rarely mention of the influence of non-genetic factors and 'multifactorial' interactions on disorders, or questioning of the goals, direction, methods, or value of genetic research. Scientists made extensive use of the media in their efforts to maintain a positive image of research in the face of public concerns about scientists 'going too far', following the announcement of the cloning of Dolly. Boundaries were drawn between 'therapeutic cloning'--implicitly defined as 'good', useful, and legitimate--and 'reproductive cloning'--seen as 'bad', dangerous, and illegitimate. By framing news stories as they do, the print news media are likely to exert a powerful influence on public responses to health problems. With new genetic technologies becoming more integrated in preventive medicine and public health, it is important to investigate how news stories help shape the agenda for public debate.

An ethical analysis of the phenomenon of misconduct in research

Ethical problems of research misconduct can be viewed in many ways. The main issue at stake is the reliability of what is presented as scientific facts. If we cannot trust research findings, the consequences can be fatal for all affected parties. There are several actors in the context of research integrity and misconduct, especially the individual scientist and the scientific community. The honesty of scientists is important but this in itself is not a sufficient condition for research integrity. We need guidelines and rules. Researchers accused of misconduct must be guaranteed legal security. A closed definition of scientific misconduct seems to be the best one for protecting the legal security, but on the other hand, an open definition is better for the protection of science. There is a gap between ethics and law in the view of research misconduct. Some actions that are regarded as unethical are quite well within the law. In order to deal with real cases of alleged research misconduct, there must be a way of closing this gap.