PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 11076049

Pedigree parables.

Abstract

Pedigrees are a foundation of genetic counseling and human genetic research. To protect patient/subject and family privacy and confidentiality it is not unusual to find published pedigrees that have been masked (i.e. a pedigree that has been changed in ways that are obvious to the reader such as diamonds to mask gender) or altered (i.e. changing pedigree information in ways that are not obvious to the reader such as changing gender and birth order or deleting unaffected siblings from the pedigree). Failure to report pedigree data (e.g. omitting ages, ethnicity, etc.) is another measure used to protect subject and family confidentiality. At what point do such practices hinder the recognition of genetic processes? Is there evidence that harm has occurred to subjects who have appeared in published pedigrees? How does the researcher or clinician determine which information is essential to record on the pedigree? The author uses a historical perspective and case examples to illustrate the issues of balancing protection of the genetic subject's privacy with the reporting of unaltered family data. The author presents several critical questions for peer reviewers and investigators to consider when a pedigree is included in a manuscript, or for researchers involved in family studies.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

R L Bennett. 2000. Pedigree parables.. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1399-0004.2000.580401.x

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Ectrodactyly and Germany's eugenics law of 14 July 1933.

The family reported herein serves as a genetically and historically important vignette on the issues of nonpenetrance (versus germinal mosaicism) in nonsyndromic autosomal dominant ectrodactyly and the Eugenics Law of Germany of 14 July 1933, which was used to coerce the sterilization of the propositus despite infertility in his first marriage. In a sibship of seven children (with normal parents), three boys were affected. The propositus (adoptive grandfather of the author) was the patient of Paul Leopold Friedrich and Georg Perthes, who published their observations on the propositus. Except for an adopted daughter, the propositus was childless. His two affected brothers each had an affected child, and the father- to son transmission confirmed the hypothesis of autosomal dominant inheritance. The issue of nonpenetrance versus germinal mosaicism in ectrodactyly was debated by Auerbach [1956:Ann Hum Genet 20:266-269] and Vogel [1958:Ann Hum Genet 22:132-137], and remains unresolved.

Eugenics↗

[The standard textbook on racial hygiene by Erwin Baur, Eugen Fischer, and Fritz Lenz as viewed by the psychiatric and neurological communities from 1921 to 1940].

The textbook "Human heredity and Racial Hygiene" by Erwin Baur, Eugen Fischer, and Fritz Lenz went through five editions between 1921 and 1940. In contemporary journals, it received almost only positive review articles and was considered to be the standard textbook on racial hygiene in the Weimar Republic. After Hitler's takeover in 1933, it became the "scientific" basis for eugenic sterilization programs. In that year, the Nazis enacted a law allowing the involuntary sterilization of persons with diseases thought to be hereditary, mostly neurological and psychiatric disorders. Using review articles on the book, the position of neurologists and psychiatrists towards racial hygiene is analyzed. We describe how they prepared and maintained the acceptance of eugenic politics in the medical profession by praising the standard work on racial hygiene.

Eugenics↗