5 research outputs found
âLetâs pull these technologies out of the ivory towerâ: The politics, ethos, and ironies of participant-driven genomic research
This paper investigates how groups of âcitizen scientistsâ in non-traditional settings and primarily online networks claim to be challenging conventional genomic research processes and norms. Although these groups are highly diverse, they all distinguish their efforts from traditional university- or industry-based genomic research as being âparticipant-drivenâ in one way or another. Participant-driven genomic research (PDGR) groups often work from âlabsâ that consist of servers and computing devices as much as wet lab apparatus, relying on information-processing software for data-driven, discovery-based analysis rather than hypothesis-driven experimentation. We interviewed individuals from a variety of efforts across the expanding ecosystem of PDGR, including academic groups, start-ups, activists, hobbyists, and hackers, in order to compare and contrast how they relate their stated objectives, practices, and political and moral stances to institutions of expert scientific knowledge production. Results reveal that these groups, despite their diversity, share commitments to promoting alternative modes of housing, conducting, and funding genomic research and, ultimately, sharing knowledge. In doing so, PDGR discourses challenge existing approaches to research governance as well, especially the regulation, ethics, and oversight of human genomic information management. Interestingly, the reaction of the traditional genomics research community to this revolutionary challenge has not been negative: in fact, the community seems to be embracing the ethos espoused by PDGR, at the highest levels of science policy. As conventional genomic research assimilates the ethos of PDGR, the movementâs âdemocratizingâ views on research governance are likely to become normalized as well, creating new tensions for science policy and research ethics
Are Social Networkers and Genome Testers One in the Same? The Limitations of Public Opinion Research for Guiding Clinical Practice
Gatekeepers or Intermediaries? The Role of Clinicians in Commercial Genomic Testing
<div><p>Background</p><p>Many commentators on âdirect-to-consumerâ genetic risk information have raised concerns that giving results to individuals with insufficient knowledge and training in genomics may harm consumers, the health care system, and society. In response, several commercial laboratories offering genomic risk profiling have shifted to more traditional âdirect-to-providerâ (DTP) marketing strategies, repositioning clinicians as the intended recipients of advertising of laboratory services and as gatekeepers to personal genomic information. Increasing popularity of next generation sequencing puts a premium on ensuring that those who are charged with interpreting, translating, communicating and managing commercial genomic risk information are appropriately equipped for the job. To shed light on their gatekeeping role, we conducted a study to assess how and why early clinical users of genomic risk assessment incorporate these tools in their clinical practices and how they interpret genomic information for their patients.</p><p>Methods and Findings</p><p>We conducted qualitative in-depth interviews with 18 clinicians providing genomic risk assessment services to their patients in partnership with DNA Direct and Navigenics. Our findings suggest that clinicians learned most of what they knew about genomics directly from the commercial laboratories. Clinicians rely on the expertise of the commercial laboratories without the ability to critically evaluate the knowledge or assess risks.</p><p>Conclusions</p><p>DTP service delivery model cannot guarantee that providers will have adequate expertise or sound clinical judgment. Even if clinicians want greater genomic knowledge, the current market structure is unlikely to build the independent substantive expertise of clinicians, but rather promote its continued outsourcing. Because commercial laboratories have the most âskin in the gameâ financially, genetics professionals and policymakers should scrutinize the scientific validity and clinical soundness of the process by which these laboratories interpret their findings to assess whether self-interested commercial sources are the most appropriate entities for gate-keeping genomic interpretation.</p></div