PubMed HealthSearch

Biomedical subjects

Daphne O Martschenko

Publications and source records attributed to Daphne O Martschenko.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

A Qualitative Study of the Roles and Responsibilities of Academic and Journalistic Publishing in Social and Behavioral Genomics.

The conduct and translation of scientific research is shaped by academic and journalistic publishing. Academic journals issue editorial guidelines and policies that inform how researchers shape and present their studies. Journalists select and report on academic studies for public audiences. Despite the potential importance of journal editors and journalists in the scientific process, little has been done to examine how these groups think about their roles and responsibilities-especially when it comes to ethically sensitive scientific domains like social and behavioral genomics (SBG): the study of whether and how genetic differences between individuals correlate with differences in behaviors such as aggression and outcomes such as educational attainment. To begin filling this gap, we conducted semi-structured interviews with editors working at academic journals that publish SBG research (n = 10) and journalists who have reported on SBG studies (n = 13). Journal editors largely saw themselves as mediators between authors and peer reviewers who help to shepherd along research. Journalists frequently described themselves as translators of science for wide audiences; at times they also saw themselves as interrogators of science. While both groups considered SBG especially ethically sensitive and prone to risks such as misinterpretation, many expressed that systematic ethical review processes and guidelines for SBG are lacking. Further, many deferred the ethical responsibility to minimize risks associated with SBG to others. Our findings highlight the need for more explicit frameworks in academic and journalistic publishing to support the ethically responsible conduct and communication of SBG.

ELSI

Intersectionality in a sociogenomic world: How do race, disability, socioeconomic status, and polygenic prediction interact to affect perceptions of educational trajectories?

PURPOSE: Education is important for lifelong skills and economic growth; however, student placement decisions may be shaped by social biases. As genomic information captured via polygenic scores becomes more available, it may also inform student placement decisions. We assessed the intersectional effects of polygenic scores, race, disability, and socioeconomic status on US adults' views of educational trajectories using an online experimental survey design. METHODS: A total of 1367 US adults were randomized to one of 16 conditions and prompted to read a short vignette about a boy named Michael, also depicted in an image. Each condition varied Michael's race (Black/White), disability (wheelchair user/no), socioeconomic status (high/low), and polygenic score (high/low) for educational attainment (EA-PGS). After reading the vignette, the respondents were asked to answer multichoice questions about Michael's immediate and long-term educational trajectories. RESULTS: Variation in Michael's EA-PGS strongly influenced participants' expectations regarding (1) the most appropriate immediate educational program for Michael (ie, general, special, or gifted education), (2) whether he would graduate high school, and, if so, (3) the highest educational degree he would complete in his lifetime (associate, bachelor, master, or PhD). Across these responses, high EA-PGS was associated with more socially desirable outcomes, whereas the opposite was true for low EA-PGS. Depicting Michael in a wheelchair significantly influenced respondents' expectations that his most appropriate immediate educational trajectory would be special. There were significant interactions between Michael's race, disability, socioeconomic status, and the EA-PGS. CONCLUSION: Information about children's EA-PGS may affect their views about their immediate and long-term educational trajectories. The negative effects of low EA-PGS were comparable to those of high EA-PGS. The EA-PGS may be interpreted in ways that compound the existing stereotypes related to a child's race, disability, and socioeconomic status.

Humans