Article

Deflating the Genomic Bubble

Department of Genetics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA.
Science (Impact Factor: 31.48). 02/2011; 331(6019). DOI: 10.1126/science.1198039
Source: PubMed
2 Followers
 · 
94 Views
  • Source
    • "Piot [45] argued that these new technologies were essential for global public health, not just for high-income countries. The complete mapping of the human genome, begun in 1990 and finally achieved early this century, generated both great public interest and hopes for medical breakthroughs [46]. However, genomics has not lived up to these expectations, partly because of the 'complex interactions between multiple genes' [47]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Many observers see advances in technology as the key means for ensuring continued economic growth, and with it human progress as well. In particular, three modern technologies—biotechnology, information technology (sometimes including robotics and cognitive technologies) and nanotechnology—are seen by some researchers as converging and thus bringing about unprecedented benefits for humanity in the coming decades. The aim of this paper is to answer the question: can the on-going rapid advances in these new technologies lead to a better future for all? By examining three important sectors—transport, health/medicine, and agriculture/food—we show that application of these technologies are either largely irrelevant, too expensive, or too risky to meet the future needs of all humans in these sectors.
    Futures 01/2014; 55. DOI:10.1016/j.futures.2013.12.003 · 1.29 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "At the initiation of the Human Genome Project (HGP), it was anticipated that a map of the human genome would allow for a next generation of treatments for diseases with a genetic base. However, if the HGP is judged by this narrow promise alone, it has been a failure (Butler, 2010; Wade, 2010; Evans et al., 2011). Although such criticisms of the HGP are premature – mapping was completed over a decade ago and drug development can require 10–20 years – they allude to a more compelling intellectual development. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The fallout from environmental determinism of the early 20th century steered geography away from biological and evolutionary thought. Yet it also set in motion the diversification of how geographers conceive environment, how these environments shape and are shaped by humans, and how scaling negotiates the interpretation of this causality. I illustrate how this plurality of scalar perspectives and practices in geography is embedded in the organism–environment interaction recently articulated in the life sciences. I describe the new fields of epigenetics and niche construction to communicate how ideas about scale from human and physical geography come together in the life sciences. I argue that the two subdisciplinary modes or ‘moments’ of scalar thinking in geography are compatible, even necessary, through their embodiment in organisms. To procure predictability, organisms practice an epistemological scaling to rework the mental and material boundaries and scales in their environment. Yet organisms are also embedded in ontological flux. Boundaries and scales do not remain static because of the agency of other organisms to shape their own predictability. I formally define biological scaling as arising from the interplay of epistemological and ontological moments of scale. This third moment of scale creates local assemblages or topologies with a propensity for persistence. These ‘lumpy’ material outcomes of the new organism–environment interaction have analogues in posthuman and new materialist geographies. They also give formerly discredited Lamarckian modes of inheritance a renewed, but revised acceptance. This article argues for a biological view of scale and causality in geography.
    Geoforum 05/2012; 43(3):427–441. DOI:10.1016/j.geoforum.2011.10.011 · 1.93 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Even though most CPMC enrollees were motivated to pursue testing by a desire to improve their health, our qualitative data show that taking action, either by sharing results with a healthcare provider, or by changing lifestyle, was not a universal response to CPMC genomic testing, despite the fact that nearly all CPMC participants are given results indicating that they are at increased risk for at least one disorder. Given the poor predictive power and relatively low relative risk of the genetic variants included in the testing offered through the CPMC, as suggested by Evans, (Evans et al., 2011), participants' decisions to not act on their results may actually be appropriate. Consistent with our data, McGowan and colleagues have suggested that many early adopters of DTC genomic testing have expressed disappointment with results that provide limited additional information about health risks. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The value of genomic risk assessment depends upon patients making appropriate behavioral changes in response to increased risk leading to disease prevention and early detection. To date, few studies have investigated consumers' response to personalized genomic disease risk information. To address this gap, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 60 adults participating in the Coriell Personalized Medicine Collaborative. The interviews took place after receiving results providing genomic and other risk information for up to eight common complex diseases. We found that participants were most likely to recall results which conferred an increased risk or those of particular personal interest. Participants understood the multi-factorial nature of common complex disease, and generally did not have negative emotional responses or overly deterministic perceptions of their results. Although most participants expressed a desire to use results to improve their health, a minority had actually taken action (behavior change or shared results with their doctor) at the time of the interview. These results suggest that participants have a reasonable understanding of genomic risk information and that provision of genomic risk information may motivate behavior change in some individuals; however additional work is needed to better understand the lack of change seen in the majority of participants.
    Journal of Genetic Counseling 12/2011; 21(3):423-32. DOI:10.1007/s10897-011-9476-4 · 1.75 Impact Factor
Show more