Antenatal screening and the gendering of genetic responsibility

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The objective of this study is to explore men's and women's perceptions of antenatal blood screening. The study will assess the impact of these perceptions on decision-making regarding diagnostic testing and selective abortion, and on parental feelings of genetic responsibility. By exploring gender and antenatal screening in this way, the research aims to contribute to our understanding of lay perceptions of genetic screening and increase our knowledge of the decision-making process in screening.</p> <p>Research design</p> <p>This qualitative study will be based on semi-structured interviews with twenty pregnant women and twenty male partners in the post-industrial city of Sheffield, UK. All interviews will be taped, transcribed and analysed thematically using NVIVO, a qualitative software package.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>The findings of this study have relevance to existing debates on the social and ethical implications of reproductive genetics. A better understanding of male and female perceptions of the screening process could improve guidance and practice in antenatal screening and genetic counselling. It will also inform and contribute to the development of theory on gender and genetic screening.</p

I’m not joking! The strategic use of humour in stories of racism

This study examines the use of humour by Black football coaches in England as a rhetorical device against racism. The paper draws on humour studies and critical race theory to illustrate signs of humour as defence. Research on humour has popularly explored the ambiguities and qualities of humour and, in particular, joke telling through its use as a foil to stem racial ills is less well understood. Where previous work has focused on explicit joke telling/banter in sport, this paper examines how techniques of humour are used in everyday racialised experiences. The use of techniques of humour enables feelings of subordination, and humiliation to be transposed into forms of resistance, while its physiological and psychological benefits can lead to inter-racial relief and catharsis. The paper concludes that techniques of humour remain underexplored as important tools of resistance to everyday racism

Admixture mapping: from paradigms of race and ethnicity to population history

Admixture mapping is a whole genome association strategy that takes advantage of population history—or genetic ancestry—to map genes for complex diseases. However, because it uses racial/ethnic groupings to examine differential disease risk, admixture mapping raises ethical and social concerns. While there has been much theoretical commentary regarding the ethical and social implications of population-based genetic research, empirical data from stakeholders most closely involved with these studies is limited. One of the first admixture mapping studies carried out was a scan for Multiple Sclerosis (MS) risk factors in an African-American population. Applying qualitative research methods, we used this example to explore developing views, experiences and perceptions of the ethical and social implications of admixture mapping and other population-based research—their value, risks and benefits, and the future prospects of the field. Additionally, we sought to understand how social and ethical risks might be mitigated, and the benefits of this research optimized. We draw on in-depth, one-on-one interviews with leading population geneticists, genome scientists, bioethicists, and African-Americans with MS. Here we present our findings from this unique group of key informants and stakeholders

Regional differences in awareness and attitudes regarding genetic testing for disease risk and ancestry

Little is known about the lay public’s awareness and attitudes concerning genetic testing and what factors influence their perspectives. The existing literature focuses mainly on ethnic and socioeconomic differences; however, here we focus on how awareness and attitudes regarding genetic testing differ by geographical regions in the US. We compared awareness and attitudes concerning genetic testing for disease risk and ancestry among 452 adults (41% Black and 67% female) in four major US cities, Norman, OK; Cincinnati, OH; Harlem, NY; and Washington, DC; prior to their participation in genetic ancestry testing. The OK participants reported more detail about their personal ancestries (p = 0.02) and valued ancestry testing over disease testing more than all other sites (p < 0.01). The NY participants were more likely than other sites to seek genetic testing for disease (p = 0.01) and to see benefit in finding out more about one’s ancestry (p = 0.02), while the DC participants reported reading and hearing more about genetic testing for African ancestry than all other sites (p < 0.01). These site differences were not better accounted for by sex, age, education, self-reported ethnicity, religion, or previous experience with genetic testing/counseling. Regional differences in awareness and attitudes transcend traditional demographic predictors, such as ethnicity, age and education. Local sociocultural factors, more than ethnicity and socioeconomic status, may influence the public’s awareness and belief systems, particularly with respect to genetics

The use of race, ethnicity and ancestry in human genetic research

Post-Human Genome Project progress has enabled a new wave of population genetic research, and intensified controversy over the use of race/ethnicity in this work. At the same time, the development of methods for inferring genetic ancestry offers more empirical means of assigning group labels. Here, we provide a systematic analysis of the use of race/ethnicity and ancestry in current genetic research. We base our analysis on key published recommendations for the use and reporting of race/ethnicity which advise that researchers: explain why the terms/categories were used and how they were measured, carefully define them, and apply them consistently. We studied 170 population genetic research articles from high impact journals, published 2008–2009. A comparative perspective was obtained by aligning study metrics with similar research from articles published 2001–2004. Our analysis indicates a marked improvement in compliance with some of the recommendations/guidelines for the use of race/ethnicity over time, while showing that important shortfalls still remain: no article using ‘race’, ‘ethnicity’ or ‘ancestry’ defined or discussed the meaning of these concepts in context; a third of articles still do not provide a rationale for their use, with those using ‘ancestry’ being the least likely to do so. Further, no article discussed potential socio-ethical implications of the reported research. As such, there remains a clear imperative for highlighting the importance of consistent and comprehensive reporting on human populations to the genetics/genomics community globally, to generate explicit guidelines for the uses of ancestry and genetic ancestry, and importantly, to ensure that guidelines are followed

What is psychiatry? Co-producing complexity in mental health

What is psychiatry? Such a question is increasingly important to engage with in light of the development of new diagnostic frameworks that have wide-ranging and international clinical and societal implications. I suggest in this reflective essay that ‘psychiatry' is not a singular entity that enjoins consistent forms of critique along familiar axes; rather, it is a heterogeneous assemblage of interacting material and symbolic elements (some of which endure, and some of which are subject to innovation). In underscoring the diversity of psychiatry, I seek to move towards further sociological purchase on what remains a contested and influential set of discourses and practices. This approach foregrounds the relationships between scientific knowledge, biomedical institutions, social action and subjective experience; these articulations co-produce both psychiatry and each other. One corollary of this emphasis on multiplicity and incoherence within psychiatric theory, research and practice, is that critiques which elide this complexity are rendered problematic. Engagements with psychiatry are, I argue, best furthered by recognising its multifaceted nature

Correlates of weapon carrying among high school students in the United States

Abstract Background Deaths and injuries arising from interpersonal violence among adolescents are major public health concerns in the United States. The bearing of weapons among adolescents is a critical factor in many of these deaths and injuries. Methods A secondary analysis of the 2005 United States Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System Survey data was carried out to examine the variables associated with self-reported history of weapon carrying on school property among high school students. We used logistic regression analysis to assess the associations. Results Of the 13,707 respondents who participated in the survey, 10.2% of males and 2.6% of females reported carrying a weapon on school property. In multivariate logistic regression analysis, males were more likely to report having carried a weapon than females (odds ratio (OR) = 5.58; 95% confidence interval (CI) [4.23, 7.62]). Self-reported race/ethnicity was also associated with weapon carrying. Other variables positively associated with weapon carrying at school were substance use (OR = 1.77; 95% CI [1.16, 2.68]), depression (OR = 1.44; 95% CI [1.10, 1.89]), suicidal ideation (OR = 1.64; 95% CI [1.23, 2.19]), having had property stolen or deliberately damaged at school (OR = 1.55; 95% CI [1.21, 1.98]), having been raped (OR = 1.70; 95% CI [1.22, 2.37]), having been threatened or injured with a weapon on school property (OR = 2.19; 95% CI [1.63, 2.95]), and having engaged in physical fighting (OR = 2.02; 95% CI [1.56, 2.63]). Conclusion This research identifies factors that are associated with weapon bearing among adolescents in the United States. These factors may be important in the design of interventions aimed at improving school safety and adolescent health