The New Gene Technology and the Difference Between Getting Rid of Illness and Altering People

Sutton, Agneta

doi:10.1179/hrge.1.1.276042718403jh80

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Work in this latter area is essential (Shapiro, 1994). In that connection, there is a fundamental difference between using genetic information to get rid of illness and altering people to promote desired (or get rid of undesired) personal characteristics (Sutton, 1995).…”

Section: Prenatal Screeningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mental Retardation: Genetic Findings, Clinical Implications and Research Agenda

Simonoff

Bolton

Rutter

1996

Child Psychology Psychiatry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The most important genetic advances in the field of mental retardation include the discovery of the novel genetic mechanism responsible for the Fragile X syndrome, and the imprinting involved in the Prader-Willi and Angelman syndromes, but there have also been advances in our understanding of the pathogenesis of Down syndrome and phenylketonuria. Genetic defects (both single gene Mendelizing disorders and cytogenetic abnormalities) are involved in a substantial proportion of cases of mild as well as severe mental retardation, indicating that the previous equating of severe mental retardation with pathology, and of mild retardation with normal variation, is a misleading over-simplication. Within the group in which no pathological cause can be detected, behaviour genetic studies indicate that genetic influences are important, but that their interplay with environmental factors, which are also important, is at present poorly understood. Research into the joint action of genetic and environmental influences in this group will be an important research area in the future.

show abstract

Section: Prenatal Screeningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mental Retardation: Genetic Findings, Clinical Implications and Research Agenda

Simonoff

Bolton

Rutter

1996

Child Psychology Psychiatry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some authors advocate genetic enhancement for reasons of parental autonomy (Robertson, 2003), beneficence (Savulescu, 2001;Stock, 2002) or justice (Holtug, 1999). Others oppose it for reasons of justice (Wenz, 2005), because it is eugenic (King, 1999), or because it objectifies people (Sutton, 1995). The respondents in the present study were certainly unaware of the convoluted arguments championed by professional bioethicists, but they made the same distinction between disease prevention and the making of better people.…”

Section: The Treatment-enhancement Distinctionmentioning

confidence: 78%

Designer babies on tap? Medical students' attitudes to pre-implantation genetic screening

Meisenberg¹

2008

Public Underst Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper describes two studies about the determinants of attitudes to pre-implantation genetic screening in a multicultural sample of medical students from the United States. Sample sizes were 292 in study 1 and 1464 in study 2. Attitudes were of an undifferentiated nature, but respondents did make a major distinction between use for disease prevention and use for enhancement. No strong distinctions were made between embryo selection and germ line gene manipulations, and between somatic gene therapy and germ line gene manipulations. Religiosity was negatively associated with acceptance of "designer baby" technology for Christians and Muslims but not Hindus. However, the strongest and most consistent influence was an apparently moralistic stance against active and aggressive interference with natural processes in general. Trust in individuals and institutions was unrelated to acceptance of the technology, indicating that fear of abuse by irresponsible individuals and corporations is not an important determinant of opposition.

show abstract

“…Part of this discourse involved appeals to gene therapies and treatments (Bell 1998), but prenatal genetic diagnosis was also lauded as a way of eliminating 'dreadful diseases' that 'plague human existence', or 'consumes the carriers identity' (Watson 1990; see also Shakespeare in this issue). An important feature of this discourse was the tendency to dissociate the elimination of disease from the elimination of people with the disease (Pembrey 1998, Wald et al 1992, and see Sutton 1995). Overall, there was little reflection about the social aspects of disease definition and the social (as opposed to medical) problems of disability.…”

Section: Notes On Scientific and Clinical Discoursesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Defining the ‘social’: towards an understanding of scientific and medical discourses on the social aspects of the new human genetics

Cunningham‐Burley

Kerr

1999

Sociology Health & Illness

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The way in which 'the social' is treated in discourses about the new human genetics is an important marker of the interests and relative power of the groups it concerns. Scientists and clinicians are powerful players in such discussions and seem to be able to direct attention towards the social implications of genetics, often viewed as beneficial, rather than to the science and technology itself. This can serve to protect their cognitive authority by promoting the benefits of their work and marginalising more critical commentaries. Here, three aspects of some written accounts of the social aspects of genetics are considered: the social use and abuse of genetics; eugenics and genetic determinism; and professional responsibilities and expertise. We consider the dominant and minority discourses within these accounts and reflect on the stances taken by clinical and molecular geneticists and public health specialists. We argue that these discourses create strategic boundaries between science and society which protect scientists' cognitive authority, but that critical leverage can nevertheless be garnered when these boundaries become blurred. This might be usefully combined with social scientists' empirical and theoretical analyses of the new human genetics, in order to facilitate more sophisticated and inclusive policy discussions and decisions.

show abstract

The New Gene Technology and the Difference Between Getting Rid of Illness and Altering People

Cited by 3 publications

References 7 publications

Mental Retardation: Genetic Findings, Clinical Implications and Research Agenda

Mental Retardation: Genetic Findings, Clinical Implications and Research Agenda

Designer babies on tap? Medical students' attitudes to pre-implantation genetic screening

Defining the ‘social’: towards an understanding of scientific and medical discourses on the social aspects of the new human genetics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About