BACKGROUND: Genetic variation research (GVR) may raise concerns about misuse of information and discrimination. Seemingly contradictory positive views about GVR have also been reported. OBJECTIVE: To dissect this inconsistency, our objectives were to: (1) explore open-ended views of GVR and (2) quantify views of and willingness to participate in GVR by race. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. PARTICIPANTS: 801 African-American and white prior participants in a case-control genetic epidemiology study of colon cancer risks (NCCCS). MEASURES: Qualitative measures evaluated responses to questions about good and bad things about GVR. Quantitative measures evaluated positive and negative perceptions, perceptions of discrimination, and likelihood of future participation by race. RESULTS: Open-ended queries about GVR resulted in few "negative" responses. In closed-ended questions, however, African Americans were more likely to feel that such research would: result in higher insurance (41% vs. 30%, p = 0.008), not benefit minorities (29% vs. 14%, p=<0.001), reinforce racism (32% vs. 20%, p = 0.002), and use minorities as guinea pigs (27% vs. 6%, p < 0.001). Overall, after adjustment for potential confounding factors, African-American race remained inversely associated with feeling "very positive" about GVR (46% vs. 57%, p = 0.035). In contrast, African Americans were as likely as whites to express willingness to participate in future GVR studies (46%). CONCLUSIONS: Open-ended questions about GVR were unlikely to spontaneously generate "negative" responses. In contrast, when presented specific examples of potentially negative implications, more respondents agreed, and minorities were more likely to express concerns. This suggests that while participants appear generally positive about GVR, their inability to articulate views regarding these complex concepts may require that researchers engage lay audiences, ensure accurate understanding, and provide them with language to express concerns.
BACKGROUND: Genetic variation research (GVR) may raise concerns about misuse of information and discrimination. Seemingly contradictory positive views about GVR have also been reported. OBJECTIVE: To dissect this inconsistency, our objectives were to: (1) explore open-ended views of GVR and (2) quantify views of and willingness to participate in GVR by race. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. PARTICIPANTS: 801 African-American and white prior participants in a case-control genetic epidemiology study of colon cancer risks (NCCCS). MEASURES: Qualitative measures evaluated responses to questions about good and bad things about GVR. Quantitative measures evaluated positive and negative perceptions, perceptions of discrimination, and likelihood of future participation by race. RESULTS: Open-ended queries about GVR resulted in few "negative" responses. In closed-ended questions, however, African Americans were more likely to feel that such research would: result in higher insurance (41% vs. 30%, p = 0.008), not benefit minorities (29% vs. 14%, p=<0.001), reinforce racism (32% vs. 20%, p = 0.002), and use minorities as guinea pigs (27% vs. 6%, p < 0.001). Overall, after adjustment for potential confounding factors, African-American race remained inversely associated with feeling "very positive" about GVR (46% vs. 57%, p = 0.035). In contrast, African Americans were as likely as whites to express willingness to participate in future GVR studies (46%). CONCLUSIONS: Open-ended questions about GVR were unlikely to spontaneously generate "negative" responses. In contrast, when presented specific examples of potentially negative implications, more respondents agreed, and minorities were more likely to express concerns. This suggests that while participants appear generally positive about GVR, their inability to articulate views regarding these complex concepts may require that researchers engage lay audiences, ensure accurate understanding, and provide them with language to express concerns.
Authors: Jennifer L Bevan; Jonh A Lynch; Tasha N Dubriwny; Tina M Harris; Paul J Achter; Amy L Reeder; Celeste M Condit Journal: Genet Med Date: 2003 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Pamela Sankar; Mildred K Cho; Celeste M Condit; Linda M Hunt; Barbara Koenig; Patricia Marshall; Sandra Soo-Jin Lee; Paul Spicer Journal: JAMA Date: 2004-06-23 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Altovise T Ewing; Nnenna Kalu; Gloria Cain; Lori H Erby; Luisel J Ricks-Santi; Eva Tetteyfio-Kidd Telemaque; Denise M Scott Journal: J Community Genet Date: 2019-03-14
Authors: Lynn G Dressler; Allison M Deal; Kouros Owzar; Dorothy Watson; Katherine Donahue; Paula N Friedman; Mark J Ratain; Howard L McLeod Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2015-07-09 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Alan R Sanders; Douglas F Levinson; Jubao Duan; J Michael Dennis; Rick Li; Kenneth S Kendler; John P Rice; Jianxin Shi; Bryan J Mowry; Farooq Amin; Jeremy M Silverman; Nancy G Buccola; William F Byerley; Donald W Black; Robert Freedman; C Robert Cloninger; Pablo V Gejman Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2010-06-01 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: Jasmine A McDonald; Frances K Barg; Benita Weathers; Carmen E Guerra; Andrea B Troxel; Susan Domchek; Deborah Bowen; Judy A Shea; Chanita Hughes Halbert Journal: J Natl Med Assoc Date: 2012 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 1.798
Authors: Stacy W Gray; Katherine Hicks-Courant; Christopher S Lathan; Levi Garraway; Elyse R Park; Jane C Weeks Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2012-08-07 Impact factor: 3.840