Literature DB >> 25232853

Naked bodies, naked genomes: the special (but not exceptional) nature of genomic information.

Daniel P Sulmasy1.   

Abstract

Genetic exceptionalism, the view that genomic information is different from other types of sensitive information and deserves exceptional types of protections, has been roundly criticized. However, the public still expresses special fears about the access others might have to their genomic information. In this article, it is argued that there may be a basis for the public perception that genomic information is special, even if it cannot be said that policies could or should be enacted to protect the privacy and confidentiality of genomic information that would be exceptional relative to the protections one would enact to protect other types of sensitive information. The special nature of genomic information lies in understanding that it is neither personal property nor mere information. A genome is, at one and the same time, a physical aspect of a person and information about that person. Genomic data are embodied information that partially constitutes as well as describes individuals and that connects them in physical ways to their ancestors and their relatives. All forms of privacy need to be protected, but some intimate aspects of our lives command special respect. To see a genome is more analogous to seeing a naked body than to seeing a social security number. This metaphor suggests that clinicians and investigators ought to respect the special concerns of patients regarding genomic information while not claiming that there are any exceptional measures one could take to protect genomic privacy. Suggestions are given for how this view might affect patient interactions, consent discussions, public policy, and public trust in genomic research and clinical genetics.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25232853     DOI: 10.1038/gim.2014.111

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Genet Med        ISSN: 1098-3600            Impact factor:   8.822


  19 in total

1.  "Genetic exceptionalism" in medicine: clarifying the differences between genetic and nongenetic tests.

Authors:  Michael J Green; Jeffrey R Botkin
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2003-04-01       Impact factor: 25.391

2.  Genetic privacy and the law: an end to genetics exceptionalism.

Authors:  L O Gostin; J G Hodge
Journal:  Jurimetrics       Date:  1999

3.  The logos of the genome: genomes as parts of organisms.

Authors:  Daniel P Sulmasy
Journal:  Theor Med Bioeth       Date:  2006

4.  Identifying personal genomes by surname inference.

Authors:  Melissa Gymrek; Amy L McGuire; David Golan; Eran Halperin; Yaniv Erlich
Journal:  Science       Date:  2013-01-18       Impact factor: 47.728

5.  European Parliament supports data protection reforms.

Authors:  Becky McCall
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2014-03-29       Impact factor: 79.321

6.  Technology: The $1,000 genome.

Authors:  Erika Check Hayden
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2014-03-20       Impact factor: 49.962

7.  Patently unpatentable: implications of the Myriad court decision on genetic diagnostics.

Authors:  Mildred Cho
Journal:  Trends Biotechnol       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 19.536

8.  Examining the public refusal to consent to DNA biobanking: empirical data from a Swedish population-based study.

Authors:  Philippe A Melas; Louise K Sjöholm; Tord Forsner; Maigun Edhborg; Niklas Juth; Yvonne Forsell; Catharina Lavebratt
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 2.903

9.  Public opinion about the importance of privacy in biobank research.

Authors:  David J Kaufman; Juli Murphy-Bollinger; Joan Scott; Kathy L Hudson
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2009-10-29       Impact factor: 11.025

10.  Genomic research and wide data sharing: views of prospective participants.

Authors:  Susan Brown Trinidad; Stephanie M Fullerton; Julie M Bares; Gail P Jarvik; Eric B Larson; Wylie Burke
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 8.822

View more
  7 in total

1.  Genetic Privacy, Disease Prevention, and the Principle of Rescue.

Authors:  Madison K Kilbride
Journal:  Hastings Cent Rep       Date:  2018-05       Impact factor: 2.683

2.  Planning Ahead for Dementia Research Participation: Insights from a Survey of Older Australians and Implications for Ethics, Law and Practice.

Authors:  Nola Ries; Elise Mansfield; Rob Sanson-Fisher
Journal:  J Bioeth Inq       Date:  2019-07-11       Impact factor: 1.352

3.  Synchronous telecommunications in medical education.

Authors:  Kieran Walsh
Journal:  J Biomed Res       Date:  2015-10-30

4.  Thought leader perspectives on benefits and harms in precision medicine research.

Authors:  Laura M Beskow; Catherine M Hammack; Kathleen M Brelsford
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-11-26       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Global Public Perceptions of Genomic Data Sharing: What Shapes the Willingness to Donate DNA and Health Data?

Authors:  Anna Middleton; Richard Milne; Mohamed A Almarri; Shamim Anwer; Jerome Atutornu; Elena E Baranova; Paul Bevan; Maria Cerezo; Yali Cong; Christine Critchley; Josepine Fernow; Peter Goodhand; Qurratulain Hasan; Aiko Hibino; Gry Houeland; Heidi C Howard; S Zakir Hussain; Charlotta Ingvoldstad Malmgren; Vera L Izhevskaya; Aleksandra Jędrzejak; Cao Jinhong; Megumi Kimura; Erika Kleiderman; Brandi Leach; Keying Liu; Deborah Mascalzoni; Álvaro Mendes; Jusaku Minari; Nan Wang; Dianne Nicol; Emilia Niemiec; Christine Patch; Jack Pollard; Barbara Prainsack; Marie Rivière; Lauren Robarts; Jonathan Roberts; Virginia Romano; Haytham A Sheerah; James Smith; Alexandra Soulier; Claire Steed; Vigdís Stefànsdóttir; Cornelia Tandre; Adrian Thorogood; Torsten H Voigt; Anne V West; Go Yoshizawa; Katherine I Morley
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2020-09-17       Impact factor: 11.025

6.  Who's afraid of genetic tests?: An assessment of Singapore's public attitudes and changes in attitudes after taking a genetic test.

Authors:  Ross Cheung; Shreshtha Jolly; Manoj Vimal; Hie Lim Kim; Ian McGonigle
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2022-01-26       Impact factor: 2.652

7.  Members of the public in the USA, UK, Canada and Australia expressing genetic exceptionalism say they are more willing to donate genomic data.

Authors:  Anna Middleton; Richard Milne; Heidi Howard; Emilia Niemiec; Lauren Robarts; Christine Critchley; Dianne Nicol; Barbara Prainsack; Jerome Atutornu; Danya F Vears; James Smith; Claire Steed; Paul Bevan; Erick R Scott; Jason Bobe; Peter Goodhand; Erika Kleiderman; Adrian Thorogood; Katherine I Morley
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2019-11-29       Impact factor: 4.246

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.