David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Science and Education 22 (10):2529-2546 (2013)
Personalized genomics companies (PG; also called ‘direct-to-consumer genetics’) are businesses marketing genetic testing to consumers over the Internet. While much has been written about these new businesses, little attention has been given to their roles in science communication. This paper provides an analysis of the gene concept presented to customers and the relation between the information given and the science behind PG. Two quite different gene concepts are present in company rhetoric, but only one features in the science. To explain this, we must appreciate the delicate tension between PG, academic science, public expectation, and market forces
|Keywords||DTC Genetic Testing Personalized Genomics Internet Genetics Gene Concepts Public Understanding of Genetics Public Understanding of Biology Representations of Genetics Genetic Determinism|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Vanessa Lux (2008). The Concept of the Gene in Psychiatric Genetics and its Consequences for the Concept of Mental Illness. Poiesis and Praxis 6 (1-2):65-77.
C. Kenneth Waters (1994). Genes Made Molecular. Philosophy of Science 61 (2):163-185.
John Dupré (2004). Understanding Contemporary Genomics. Perspectives on Science 12 (3):320-338.
Peter J. Beurton, Raphael Falk & Hans-Jörg Rheinberger (eds.) (2000). The Concept of the Gene in Development and Evolution: Historical and Epistemological Perspectives. Cambridge University Press.
Carl Schlichting & Massimo Pigliucci (1995). Gene Regulation, Quantitative Genetics and the Evolution of Reaction Norms. Evolutionary Ecology 9:154-168.
Antonio Marturano & Ruth Chadwick (2004). How the Role of Computing is Driving New Genetics' Public Policy. Ethics and Information Technology 6 (1):43-53.
A. S. (2001). The Gene Genie: Good Fairy or Wicked Witch? Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 32 (4):723-739.
Sharon L. R. Kardia, Jane P. Sheldon, Elizabeth M. Petty, Merle Feldbaum, Elizabeth S. Anderson, Angela D. Lanie & Toby Epstein Jayaratne, Exploring the Public Understanding of Basic Genetic Concepts.
Tareq Syed, Michael Bölker & Mathias Gutmann (2008). Genetic “Information” or the Indomitability of a Persisting Scientific Metaphor. Poiesis and Praxis 5 (3-4):193-209.
David B. Resnik (1997). The Morality of Human Gene Patents. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 7 (1):43-61.
Michael J. Wade, Rasmus Grønfeldt Winther, Aneil F. Agrawal & Charles J. Goodnight (2001). Alternative Definitions of Epistasis: Dependence and Interaction. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 16 (9):498-504.
Henry Howe & John Lyne (1992). Gene Talk in Sociobiology. Social Epistemology 6 (2):109 – 163.
Ruth Chadwick, Henk ten Have, Rogeer Hoedemaekers, Jrgen Husted, Mairi Levitt, Tony McGleenan, Darren Shickle & Urban Wiesing (2001). Euroscreen 2: Towards Community Policy on Insurance, Commercialization and Public Awareness. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 26 (3):263 – 272.
Péter Kakuk (2008). Gene Concepts and Genethics: Beyond Exceptionalism. Science and Engineering Ethics 14 (3):357-375.
Added to index2012-07-19
Total downloads44 ( #41,372 of 1,101,947 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #128,846 of 1,101,947 )
How can I increase my downloads?