Literature DB >> 25697637

Flexible positions, managed hopes: the promissory bioeconomy of a whole genome sequencing cancer study.

Rachel Haase1, Marsha Michie2, Debra Skinner3.   

Abstract

Genomic research has rapidly expanded its scope and ambition over the past decade, promoted by both public and private sectors as having the potential to revolutionize clinical medicine. This promissory bioeconomy of genomic research and technology is generated by, and in turn generates, the hopes and expectations shared by investors, researchers and clinicians, patients, and the general public alike. Examinations of such bioeconomies have often focused on the public discourse, media representations, and capital investments that fuel these "regimes of hope," but also crucial are the more intimate contexts of small-scale medical research, and the private hopes, dreams, and disappointments of those involved. Here we examine one local site of production in a university-based clinical research project that sought to identify novel cancer predisposition genes through whole genome sequencing in individuals at high risk for cancer. In-depth interviews with 24 adults who donated samples to the study revealed an ability to shift flexibly between positioning themselves as research participants on the one hand, and as patients or as family members of patients, on the other. Similarly, interviews with members of the research team highlighted the dual nature of their positions as researchers and as clinicians. For both parties, this dual positioning shaped their investment in the project and valuing of its possible outcomes. In their narratives, all parties shifted between these different relational positions as they managed hopes and expectations for the research project. We suggest that this flexibility facilitated study implementation and participation in the face of potential and probable disappointment on one or more fronts, and acted as a key element in the resilience of this local promissory bioeconomy. We conclude that these multiple dimensions of relationality and positionality are inherent and essential in the creation of any complex economy, "bio" or otherwise.
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bioeconomies; Biovalue; Cancer; Positionality; Research-clinical care boundary; Translational genomics; United States; Whole genome sequencing

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25697637      PMCID: PMC4363274          DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.02.016

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Soc Sci Med        ISSN: 0277-9536            Impact factor:   4.634


  26 in total

1.  'Science is really needed--that's all I know': informed consent and the non-verbal practices of collecting blood for genetic research in northern Sweden.

Authors:  Klaus Hoeyer
Journal:  New Genet Soc       Date:  2003-12

2.  The therapeutic misconception at 25: treatment, research, and confusion.

Authors:  Jonathan Kimmelman
Journal:  Hastings Cent Rep       Date:  2007 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 2.683

3.  GOOD GIFTS FOR THE COMMON GOOD: Blood and Bioethics in the Market of Genetic Research.

Authors:  Deepa S Reddy
Journal:  Cult Anthropol       Date:  2007-08

4.  Offering individual genetic research results: context matters.

Authors:  Laura M Beskow; Wylie Burke
Journal:  Sci Transl Med       Date:  2010-06-30       Impact factor: 17.956

5.  False hopes and best data: consent to research and the therapeutic misconception.

Authors:  P S Appelbaum; L H Roth; C W Lidz; P Benson; W Winslade
Journal:  Hastings Cent Rep       Date:  1987-04       Impact factor: 2.683

6.  The therapeutic misconception: informed consent in psychiatric research.

Authors:  P S Appelbaum; L H Roth; C Lidz
Journal:  Int J Law Psychiatry       Date:  1982

7.  An investigation of patients' motivations for their participation in genetics-related research.

Authors:  N Hallowell; S Cooke; G Crawford; A Lucassen; M Parker; C Snowdon
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 2.903

8.  Customers or research participants? Guidance for research practices in commercialization of personal genomics.

Authors:  Sara L Tobin; Mildred K Cho; Sandra S-J Lee; David C Magnus; Megan Allyse; Kelly E Ormond; Nanibaa' A Garrison
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2012-06-14       Impact factor: 8.822

9.  The past, present, and future of the debate over return of research results and incidental findings.

Authors:  Susan M Wolf
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 8.822

Review 10.  Processes and preliminary outputs for identification of actionable genes as incidental findings in genomic sequence data in the Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research Consortium.

Authors:  Jonathan S Berg; Laura M Amendola; Christine Eng; Eliezer Van Allen; Stacy W Gray; Nikhil Wagle; Heidi L Rehm; Elizabeth T DeChene; Matthew C Dulik; Fuki M Hisama; Wylie Burke; Nancy B Spinner; Levi Garraway; Robert C Green; Sharon Plon; James P Evans; Gail P Jarvik
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2013-10-24       Impact factor: 8.822

View more
  7 in total

1.  The nuanced negative: Meanings of a negative diagnostic result in clinical exome sequencing.

Authors:  Debra Skinner; Kelly A Raspberry; Martha King
Journal:  Sociol Health Illn       Date:  2016-08-19

2.  Enrolling Genomics Research Participants through a Clinical Setting: the Impact of Existing Clinical Relationships on Informed Consent and Expectations for Return of Research Results.

Authors:  Courtney Berrios; Cynthia A James; Karen Raraigh; Juli Bollinger; Brittney Murray; Crystal Tichnell; Carolyn D Applegate; Amanda L Bergner
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2017-09-20       Impact factor: 2.537

3.  Psychological adaptation to diagnostic genomic sequencing results: The role of hope fulfillment.

Authors:  Ida Griesemer; Elizabeth Moore; Cynthia Khan; Myra Roche; Gail Henderson; Christine Rini
Journal:  Health Psychol       Date:  2019-04-08       Impact factor: 4.267

4.  With great (participant) rights comes great (researcher) responsibility.

Authors:  Gail E Henderson
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2015-05-07       Impact factor: 8.822

5.  "Possibly positive or certainly uncertain?": participants' responses to uncertain diagnostic results from exome sequencing.

Authors:  Debra Skinner; Myra I Roche; Karen E Weck; Kelly A Raspberry; A Katherine M Foreman; Natasha T Strande; Jonathan S Berg; James P Evans; Gail E Henderson
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2017-10-02       Impact factor: 8.822

6.  Genomic research and the cancer clinic: uncertainty and expectations in professional accounts.

Authors:  Anne Kerr; Julia Swallow; Choon Key Chekar; Sarah Cunningham-Burley
Journal:  New Genet Soc       Date:  2019-03-07

7.  Accomplishing an adaptive clinical trial for cancer: Valuation practices and care work across the laboratory and the clinic.

Authors:  Julia Swallow; Anne Kerr; Choon Key Chekar; Sarah Cunningham-Burley
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2020-03-24       Impact factor: 4.634

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.