PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 10490410

Privacy in genetics research.

B P Fuller·M J Kahn·P A Barr·L Biesecker·E Crowley·J Garber·M K Mansoura·P Murphy·J Murray·J Phillips·K Rothenberg·M Rothstein·J Stopfer·G Swergold·B Weber·F K Collins·K L Hudson
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.

Explore related subjects

BioethicsConfidentialityDisclosureEthics Committees, ResearchFederal GovernmentGenetic PrivacyGenetic ResearchGenetics, MedicalGovernment RegulationHumansInformed ConsentPrivacyResearchResearch SubjectsUnited StatesBiomedical and Behavioral ResearchGenetics and ReproductionJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

B P Fuller, M J Kahn, P A Barr, L Biesecker, E Crowley, J Garber, M K Mansoura, P Murphy, J Murray, J Phillips, K Rothenberg, M Rothstein, J Stopfer, G Swergold, B Weber, F K Collins, K L Hudson. 1999-08-27. Privacy in genetics research.. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.285.5432.1359

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

High hopes and automatic escalators: a critique of some new arguments in bioethics.

Two protechnology arguments, the "hopeful principle" and the "automatic escalator", often used in bioethics, are identified and critically analysed in this paper. It is shown that the hopeful principle is closely related to the problematic precautionary principle, and the automatic escalator argument has close affinities to the often criticised empirical slippery slope argument. The hopeful principle is shown to be really hopeless as an argument, and automatic escalator arguments often lead nowhere when critically analysed. These arguments should therefore only be used with great caution.

Bioethics↗