PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 11657428

Groups as gatekeepers to genomic research: conceptually confusing, morally hazardous, and practically useless.

Abstract

Some argue that human groups have a stake in the outcome of population-genomics research and that the decision to participate in such research should therefore be subject to group permission. It is not possible, however, to obtain prior group permission, because the actual human groups under study, human demes, are unidentifiable before research begins. Moreover, they lack moral standing. If identifiable social groups with moral standing are used as proxies for demes, group approval could be sought, but at the expense of unfairly exposing these surrogates to risks from which prior group approval is powerless to protect them. Unless population genomics can proceed without targeting socially defined groups, or can find other ways of protecting them, it may fall to individuals to protect the interests of the groups they care about, and to scientists to warn their subjects of the need to do so.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Eric T Juengst. 1998. Groups as gatekeepers to genomic research: conceptually confusing, morally hazardous, and practically useless.. https://doi.org/10.1353/ken.1998.0010

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Professionalism in modern medicine: does the emperor have any clothes?

The virtues that constitute medical professionalism have been aptly described in multiple position statements from professional organizations and individuals. These professional virtues depend on particular moral community traditions to undergird and sustain them. Attempts to ground these virtues in narratives intrinsic to medical practice--in the moral consensus of physicians or patients, in the self-regulating character of medicine as a profession, in the Hippocratic tradition, or in the physician-patient encounter--have been unsuccessful. Modern medicine must, therefore, look outside its own methodological and clinical practices for grounding narratives sufficient to sustain the professional virtues set forth in the recently published professionalism statements. These professionalism statements are written to capture consensus, and they rarely acknowledge the external moral traditions on which the virtues depend, because doing so would, in a pluralistic culture, entail the risk of moral disagreement and division. The authors argue that meaningful education in professionalism must look beyond the consensus statements and deeply engage the particular cultural traditions external to the practice of medicine that sustain the professional virtues. Medical professionalism curricula should embody an open pluralism, giving voice to diverse moral communities, encouraging critical self-exploration and discussion about the truth claims of these communities, and, if possible, facilitating the integration of students' professional development with their ongoing participation in these communities. Engagement with and participation in these sustaining moral communities would promote the cultivation of virtue capable of withstanding the economic and social threats to professionalism that are inherent in modern medical practice.

Cultural Diversity↗