Suchergebnisse

International audience ; The term "genetic load" first emerged in a paper written in 1950 by the geneticist H. Muller. It is a mathematical model based on biological, social, political and ethical arguments describing the dramatic accumulation of disadvantageous mutations in human populations that will occur in modern societies if eugenic measures are not taken. The model describes how the combined actions of medical and social progress will supposedly impede natural selection and make genes of inferior quality likely to spread across populations-a process which in fine loads their progress. Genetic load is based on optimal fitness and emerges from a "typo-logical view" of evolution. This model of evolution had previously, however, been invalidated by Robert Wright and Theodosius Dobzhansky who, as early as 1946, showed that polymor-phism was the rule in natural populations. The blooming and persistence of the concept of genetic load, after its theoretical basis had already expired, are a historical puzzle. This persistence reveals the intricacy of science and policy-making in eugenic matters. The Canguil-hemian concept of 'scientific ideology' (1988) is used along with the concept of 'immutable mobile' (Latour 1986) and compared with the concept of 'co-production' (Jasanoff 1998), to provide complementary perspectives on this complex phenomenon.

International audience ; The term " genetic load " first emerged in a paper written in 1950 by the geneticist H. Muller. It is a mathematical model based on biological, social, political and ethical arguments describing the dramatic accumulation of disadvantageous mutations in human populations that will occur in modern societies if eugenic measures are not taken. The model describes how the combined actions of medical and social progress will supposedly impede natural selection and make genes of inferior quality likely to spread across populations – a process which in fine loads their progress. Genetic load is based on optimal fitness and emerges from a " typo-logical view " of evolution. This model of evolution had previously, however, been invalidated by Robert Wright and Theodosius Dobzhansky who, as early as 1946, showed that polymor-phism was the rule in natural populations. The blooming and persistence of the concept of genetic load, after its theoretical basis had already expired, are a historical puzzle. This persistence reveals the intricacy of science and policy-making in eugenic matters. The Canguil-hemian concept of 'scientific ideology' (1988) is used along with the concept of 'immutable mobile' (Latour 1986) and compared with the concept of 'co-production' (Jasanoff 1998), to provide complementary perspectives on this complex phenomenon.

International audience ; The term "genetic load" first emerged in a paper written in 1950 by the geneticist H. Muller. It is a mathematical model based on biological, social, political and ethical arguments describing the dramatic accumulation of disadvantageous mutations in human populations that will occur in modern societies if eugenic measures are not taken. The model describes how the combined actions of medical and social progress will supposedly impede natural selection and make genes of inferior quality likely to spread across populations-a process which in fine loads their progress. Genetic load is based on optimal fitness and emerges from a "typo-logical view" of evolution. This model of evolution had previously, however, been invalidated by Robert Wright and Theodosius Dobzhansky who, as early as 1946, showed that polymor-phism was the rule in natural populations. The blooming and persistence of the concept of genetic load, after its theoretical basis had already expired, are a historical puzzle. This persistence reveals the intricacy of science and policy-making in eugenic matters. The Canguil-hemian concept of 'scientific ideology' (1988) is used along with the concept of 'immutable mobile' (Latour 1986) and compared with the concept of 'co-production' (Jasanoff 1998), to provide complementary perspectives on this complex phenomenon.

The term "genetic load" first emerged in a paper written in 1950 by the geneticist H. Muller. It is a mathematical model based on biological, social, political and ethical arguments describing the dramatic accumulation of disadvantageous mutations in human populations that will occur in modern societies if eugenic measures are not taken. The model describes how the combined actions of medical and social progress will supposedly impede natural selection and make genes of inferior quality likely to spread across populations – a process which in fine loads their progress. Genetic load is based on optimal fitness and emerges from a "typological view" of evolution. This model of evolution had previously, however, been invalidated by Robert Wright and Theodosius Dobzhansky who, as early as 1946, showed that polymorphism was the rule in natural populations. The blooming and persistence of the concept of genetic load, after its theoretical basis had already expired, are a historical puzzle. This persistence reveals the intricacy of science and policy-making in eugenic matters. The Canguilhemian concept of 'scientific ideology' (1988) is used along with the concept of 'immutable mobile' (Latour 1986) and compared with the concept of 'co-production' (Jasanoff 1998), to provide complementary perspectives on this complex phenomenon.

International audience ; The term " genetic load " first emerged in a paper written in 1950 by the geneticist H. Muller. It is a mathematical model based on biological, social, political and ethical arguments describing the dramatic accumulation of disadvantageous mutations in human populations that will occur in modern societies if eugenic measures are not taken. The model describes how the combined actions of medical and social progress will supposedly impede natural selection and make genes of inferior quality likely to spread across populations – a process which in fine loads their progress. Genetic load is based on optimal fitness and emerges from a " typo-logical view " of evolution. This model of evolution had previously, however, been invalidated by Robert Wright and Theodosius Dobzhansky who, as early as 1946, showed that polymor-phism was the rule in natural populations. The blooming and persistence of the concept of genetic load, after its theoretical basis had already expired, are a historical puzzle. This persistence reveals the intricacy of science and policy-making in eugenic matters. The Canguil-hemian concept of 'scientific ideology' (1988) is used along with the concept of 'immutable mobile' (Latour 1986) and compared with the concept of 'co-production' (Jasanoff 1998), to provide complementary perspectives on this complex phenomenon.

International audience ; The term "genetic load" first emerged in a paper written in 1950 by the geneticist H. Muller. It is a mathematical model based on biological, social, political and ethical arguments describing the dramatic accumulation of disadvantageous mutations in human populations that will occur in modern societies if eugenic measures are not taken. The model describes how the combined actions of medical and social progress will supposedly impede natural selection and make genes of inferior quality likely to spread across populations-a process which in fine loads their progress. Genetic load is based on optimal fitness and emerges from a "typo-logical view" of evolution. This model of evolution had previously, however, been invalidated by Robert Wright and Theodosius Dobzhansky who, as early as 1946, showed that polymor-phism was the rule in natural populations. The blooming and persistence of the concept of genetic load, after its theoretical basis had already expired, are a historical puzzle. This persistence reveals the intricacy of science and policy-making in eugenic matters. The Canguil-hemian concept of 'scientific ideology' (1988) is used along with the concept of 'immutable mobile' (Latour 1986) and compared with the concept of 'co-production' (Jasanoff 1998), to provide complementary perspectives on this complex phenomenon.

In genomic research, as in other highly computerised scientific fields, databases and biobanks are today (re-)organised into infrastructures. This new organisational model should support the technical and collaborative effort needed to deal with Big Data, that is, data sets that are too large and too complex to be treated with conventional methods. Establishing these new environments is an actual technical challenge that requires, in order to be operational, appropriate regulatory frameworks that are both open to internationalisation and long-term prospects. But some of these changes are not consistent with current ethics procedures, including the informed consent process. The ethics of genomics research must therefore be reconsidered by asking whether it is in technology that we must draw new solutions for the governance of research or whether we must respond to these evolutions by proposing a political treatment to clarify what we value collectively. This work, which is based on a pragmatist approach, intends to cultivate a reflexive attitude on the changes being made in genomic research by describing situations of moral tension. This requires elucidating the role of biobanks and databases in the production, validation and publication of genomic research; accounting for the conflicts of values to which the development of these devices can give rise when they are incompatible with the current procedures and thus to examine whether the devices as conceived are desirable in the contexts where they are developed. This thesis is based on the analysis of concrete situations, resulting from research projects in which we have been involved or from studies of science in practices (philosophy, anthropology, sociology and history). During this examination, the regulatory idea of a person-member is proposed, in order to favor the consideration of the social and political affiliations of the subject of ethics to research in genomics. ; Dans le champ de la recherche en génomique, comme dans d'autres domaines très ...

In genomic research, as in other highly computerised scientific fields, databases and biobanks are today (re-)organised into infrastructures. This new organisational model should support the technical and collaborative effort needed to deal with Big Data, that is, data sets that are too large and too complex to be treated with conventional methods. Establishing these new environments is an actual technical challenge that requires, in order to be operational, appropriate regulatory frameworks that are both open to internationalisation and long-term prospects. But some of these changes are not consistent with current ethics procedures, including the informed consent process. The ethics of genomics research must therefore be reconsidered by asking whether it is in technology that we must draw new solutions for the governance of research or whether we must respond to these evolutions by proposing a political treatment to clarify what we value collectively. This work, which is based on a pragmatist approach, intends to cultivate a reflexive attitude on the changes being made in genomic research by describing situations of moral tension. This requires elucidating the role of biobanks and databases in the production, validation and publication of genomic research; accounting for the conflicts of values to which the development of these devices can give rise when they are incompatible with the current procedures and thus to examine whether the devices as conceived are desirable in the contexts where they are developed. This thesis is based on the analysis of concrete situations, resulting from research projects in which we have been involved or from studies of science in practices (philosophy, anthropology, sociology and history). During this examination, the regulatory idea of a person-member is proposed, in order to favor the consideration of the social and political affiliations of the subject of ethics to research in genomics. ; Dans le champ de la recherche en génomique, comme dans d'autres domaines très ...

Under the auspices of a multi-national European scientific project involving whole genome sequencing, GEUVADIS, we set out to investigate the attitudes of the participating scientists of having their own genome sequenced. The views of such researchers on this subject have not been fully explored before and we utilized questionnaires and discussion groups to elicit their opinions. Many said that it was the first time that they had an opportunity to discuss ethical and social issues about sequencing. The many ongoing multi-national science projects present a good opportunity for social science research involving scientists and would benefit from rigorous research methodology, taking into account any language barriers.

Purpose The aim of this study was to determine how attitudes toward the return of genomic research results vary internationally. Methods We analyzed the "Your DNA, Your Say" online survey of public perspectives on genomic data sharing including responses from 36,268 individuals across 22 low-, middle-, and high-income countries, and these were gathered in 15 languages. We analyzed how participants responded when asked whether return of results (RoR) would motivate their decision to donate DNA or health data. We examined variation across the study countries and compared the responses of participants from other countries with those from the United States, which has been the subject of the majority of research on return of genomic results to date. Results There was substantial variation in the extent to which respondents reported being influenced by RoR. However, only respondents from Russia were more influenced than those from the United States, and respondents from 20 countries had lower odds of being partially or wholly influenced than those from the United States. Conclusion There is substantial international variation in the extent to which the RoR may motivate people's intent to donate DNA or health data. The United States may not be a clear indicator of global attitudes. Participants' preferences for return of genomic results globally should be considered.

Analyzing genomic data across populations is central to understanding the role of genetic factors in health and disease. Successful data sharing relies on public support, which requires attention to whether people around the world are willing to donate their data that are then subsequently shared with others for research. However, studies of such public perceptions are geographically limited and do not enable comparison. This paper presents results from a very large public survey on attitudes toward genomic data sharing. Data from 36,268 individuals across 22 countries (gathered in 15 languages) are presented. In general, publics across the world do not appear to be aware of, nor familiar with, the concepts of DNA, genetics, and genomics. Willingness to donate one's DNA and health data for research is relatively low, and trust in the process of data's being shared with multiple users (e.g., doctors, researchers, governments) is also low. Participants were most willing to donate DNA or health information for research when the recipient was specified as a medical doctor and least willing to donate when the recipient was a for-profit researcher. Those who were familiar with genetics and who were trusting of the users asking for data were more likely to be willing to donate. However, less than half of participants trusted more than one potential user of data, although this varied across countries. Genetic information was not uniformly seen as different from other forms of health information, but there was an association between seeing genetic information as special in some way compared to other health data and increased willingness to donate. The global perspective provided by our "Your DNA, Your Say" study is valuable for informing the development of international policy and practice for sharing genomic data. It highlights that the research community not only needs to be worthy of trust by the public, but also urgent steps need to be taken to authentically communicate why genomic research is necessary and how data donation, and subsequent sharing, is integral to this.Analyzing genomic data across populations is central to understanding the role of genetic factors in health and disease. Successful data sharing relies on public support, which requires attention to whether people around the world are willing to donate their data that are then subsequently shared with others for research. However, studies of such public perceptions are geographically limited and do not enable comparison. This paper presents results from a very large public survey on attitudes toward genomic data sharing. Data from 36,268 individuals across 22 countries (gathered in 15 languages) are presented. In general, publics across the world do not appear to be aware of, nor familiar with, the concepts of DNA, genetics, and genomics. Willingness to donate one's DNA and health data for research is relatively low, and trust in the process of data's being shared with multiple users (e.g., doctors, researchers, governments) is also low. Participants were most willing to donate DNA or health information for research when the recipient was specified as a medical doctor and least willing to donate when the recipient was a for-profit researcher. Those who were familiar with genetics and who were trusting of the users asking for data were more likely to be willing to donate. However, less than half of participants trusted more than one potential user of data, although this varied across countries. Genetic information was not uniformly seen as different from other forms of health information, but there was an association between seeing genetic information as special in some way compared to other health data and increased willingness to donate. The global perspective provided by our "Your DNA, Your Say" study is valuable for informing the development of international policy and practice for sharing genomic data. It highlights that the research community not only needs to be worthy of trust by the public, but also urgent steps need to be taken to authentically communicate why genomic research is necessary and how data donation, and subsequent sharing, is integral to this. ; publishedVersion