PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Kathy Hudson

Publications and source records attributed to Kathy Hudson.

11 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2005

Geneticists' views on science policy formation and public outreach.

Though much research about the public's views of scientists, genetic research and its moral, ethical, and social implications exists, little has been done to investigate how scientists view their own role(s) in public discussions and policy formation related to genetic research and technologies. We interviewed 20 academic geneticists in the United States about their perceptions of the roles they and others (e.g., professional societies, the public, ethicists, and elected officials) do and should play in the formation of science policy, the communication of science to the public, and the public discussions of moral and ethical issues raised by scientific advances. The participants in our study thought that scientists should be more actively involved in public outreach and science policy formation, but frequently they felt ill-equipped and unsupported by their peers and institutions to pursue these activities. Furthermore, many were skeptical of or did not trust elected officials--who they consider uninformed about the issues and too driven by political agendas--to formulate sound science policy. They do, however, have faith in the ability of scientific societies to influence policy effectively, and some thought that societies should play a larger role, both in science policy and as a liaison between scientists and the public. Finally, participants offered suggestions for increasing the involvement and influence of scientists in science-policy formation and public discourse.

Adult↗
PubMed2005

Opinions about new reproductive genetic technologies: hopes and fears for our genetic future.

OBJECTIVE: To identify underlying beliefs and values shaping Americans' opinions about the appropriate use of new reproductive genetic technologies (RGTs), including preimplantation genetic diagnosis, hypothetical genetic modification, and sperm sorting for sex selection. DESIGN: Scenarios with ethical dilemmas presented to 21 focus groups organized by sex, race/ethnicity, religion, age, education, and parental status. SETTING: A city in each state: California, Colorado, Massachusetts, Michigan, and Tennessee. PARTICIPANT(S): One hundred and eighty-one paid volunteers, ages 18 to 68. INTERVENTION(S): None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Beliefs and values that shape participants' opinions about the appropriate use of new RGTs. RESULT(S): Regardless of demographic characteristics, focus group participants considered six key factors when determining the appropriateness of using RGTs: [1] whether embryos would be destroyed; [2] the nature of the disease or trait being avoided or sought; [3] technological control over "natural" reproduction; [4] the value of suffering, disability, and difference; [5] the importance of having genetically related children; and [6] the kind of future people desire or fear. CONCLUSION(S): Public opinions about the appropriate use of RGTs are shaped by numerous complementary and conflicting values beyond classic abortion arguments. Clinicians and policy-makers have the opportunity to consider these opinions when creating messages and crafting policy.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2005

PGD patients' and providers' attitudes to the use and regulation of preimplantation genetic diagnosis.

Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) providers and patients have a vested interest in policy related to the use and regulation of PGD. To understand their experiences and attitudes, 32 in-depth interviews were conducted. Participants included 13 people at risk of transmitting a single-gene alteration to their children (10/13 had actually used PGD to try to have an unaffected child) and 19 PGD service providers (four nurses, five genetic counsellors, two reproductive endocrinologists, two geneticists, two physician-geneticists, two embryologists, and two laboratory directors). Virtually all participants supported the use of PGD to avoid severe, life-threatening genetic illness or to select embryos that are a tissue match for a sick sibling, but their attitudes varied significantly over the appropriateness of using PGD to avoid adult-onset genetic disease, to select for sex, or to select for other non-medical characteristics. There was disagreement within the PGD provider community about whether or not PGD is experimental. Participants were more concerned about overzealous government regulation of PGD creating barriers to access than potential abuses of the technology, and expected the PGD provider community to take the lead in ensuring that PGD is used for ethically appropriate purposes.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

Regulating (for the benefit of) future persons: a different perspective on the FDA's jurisdiction to regulate human reproductive cloning.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has taken the position that human reproductive cloning falls within its regulatory jurisdiction. This position has been subject to criticism on both procedural and substantive grounds. Some have contended that the FDA has failed to follow administrative law principles in asserting its jurisdiction, while others claim the FDA is ill suited to the task of addressing the ethical and social implications of human cloning. This Article argues, that, notwithstanding these criticisms, the FDA could plausibly assert jurisdiction over human cloning as a form of human gene therapy, an area in which the FDA is already regarded as having primary regulatory authority. Such an assertion would require that the FDA's jurisdiction extend to products affecting future persons, i.e., those not yet born. This Article demonstrates, for the first time, that such jurisdiction was implicit in the enactment of the 1962 Kefauver-Harris Amendments to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and that the FDA has historically relied on such authority in promulgating regulations for drugs and devices.

Cloning, Organism↗