The genetics of nicotine addiction liability: Ethical and social policy implications

Aim To assess the promise and risks of technological applications of genetic research on liability to develop nicotine dependence. Methods We reviewed (i) the evidence on the genetics of nicotine dependence; (ii) the technical feasibility of using genetic information to reduce smoking uptake and increase cessation; and (iii) policy and ethical issues raised by the uses of genetic information on addiction liability. Results (i) Despite evidence from twin studies that genes contribute to addiction susceptibility, research to date has not identified commonly occurring alleles that are strongly predictive of developing nicotine addiction. Nicotine addiction is likely to involve multiple alleles of small effect that interact with each other and with the environment. (ii) Population screening for susceptibility alleles is unlikely to be effective or cost-effective. Tailoring of smoking cessation treatments with genetic information is more plausible but results to date have been disappointing. Population health strategies such as increased taxation and reduced opportunities to smoke are more efficient in reducing cigarette smoking. Tobacco harm reduction policies applied to populations may also play a role in reducing tobacco-related harm. (iii) Future uses of genomic information on addiction risk will need to assess the risks of medicalising addiction (e.g. pessimism about capacity to quit) and community concerns about genetic privacy. Conclusions Nicotine genomics is a very new and underdeveloped field. On the evidence to date, its advocates would be wise to avoid extravagant claims about its preventive applications

Genetically modified abominations?

Widespread opposition to GMOs might have deep-seated cultural cause

‘The scientists think and the public feels’: expert perceptions of the discourse of GM food

Debates about new technologies, such as crop and food genetic modification (GM), raise pressing questions about the ways ‘experts’ and ‘ nonexperts’ communicate. These debates are dynamic, characterized by many voices contesting numerous storylines. The discoursal features, including language choices and communication strategies, of the GM debate are in some ways taken for granted and in others actively manipulated by participants. Although there are many voices, some have more influence than others. This study makes use of 50 hours of in-depth interviews with GM scientists, nonexperts, and other stakeholders in the GM debate to examine this phenomenon. We uncover rhetorical devices used by scientists to characterize and ultimately undermine participation by non-experts in areas including rationality, knowledge, understanding and objectivity. Scientists engage with ‘the public’ from their own linguistic and social domain, without reflexive confirmation of their own status as part of the public and the citizenry. This raises a number of interesting ironies and contradictions, which are explored in the article. As such, it provides valuable insights into an increasingly important type of discourse