Scientific responsibility for the dissemination and interpretation of genetic research: lessons from the “warrior gene” controversy
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Medical Ethics 34 (6):507-509 (2008)
This paper discusses the announcement by a team of researchers that they identified a genetic influence for a range of “antisocial” behaviours in the New Zealand Māori population (dubbed the “warrior gene”). The behaviours included criminality, violence, gambling and alcoholism. The reported link between genetics and behaviour met with much controversy. The scientists were described as hiding behind a veneer of supposedly “objective” western science, using it to perpetuate “racist and oppressive discourses”. In this paper we examine what went wrong in the dissemination of the research. We chose as our framework the debate around the “internal/external” responsibilities of scientists. Using this discourse we argue that when the researchers ventured to explain their research in terms of social phenomena, they assumed a duty to ensure that their findings were placed “in context”. By “in context”, we argue that evidence of any genetic influence on behavioural characteristics should not be reported in isolation, but instead presented alongside other environmental, cultural and socio-economic influences that may also contribute to the studied behaviour. Rather than imposing a new obligation on scientists, we find this duty to contextualise results is in keeping with the spirit of codes of ethics already in place. Lessons from the “warrior gene” controversy may assist researchers elsewhere to identify potential areas of conflict before they jeopardise research relationships, or disseminate findings in a manner that fuels misleading and/or potentially discriminatory attitudes in society
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Laurence Perbal (2013). The 'Warrior Gene' and the Mãori People: The Responsibility of the Geneticists. Bioethics 27 (7):382-387.
Ashkan Atry, Mats G. Hansson & Ulrik Kihlbom (2011). Gene Doping and the Responsibility of Bioethicists. Sport, Ethics and Philosophy 5 (2):149 - 160.
Carl Mitcham (2003). Co-Responsibility for Research Integrity. Science and Engineering Ethics 9 (2):273-290.
W. French Anderson (1985). Human Gene Therapy: Scientific and Ethical Considerations. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 10 (3):275-292.
Sean A. Weaver & Michael C. Morris (2005). Risks Associated with Genetic Modification: – An Annotated Bibliography of Peer Reviewed Natural Science Publications. [REVIEW] Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 18 (2):157-189.
Jennifer Marshall, The Development of Contemporary Medical Genetics Research Models and the Need for Scientific Responsibility.
Colin Farrelly (2007). Genetic Justice Must Track Genetic Complexity. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 17 (01):45-53.
Torsten Wilholt (2009). Bias and Values in Scientific Research. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 40 (1):92-101.
James Tabery (2009). From a Genetic Predisposition to an Interactive Predisposition: Rethinking the Ethical Implications of Screening for Gene-Environment Interactions. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 34 (1):27-48.
Petter Portin (2002). Historical Development of the Concept of the Gene. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 27 (3):257 – 286.
Jordan Bartol (2013). Re-Examining the Gene in Personalized Genomics. Science and Education 22 (10):2529-2546.
Andrew Askland (2003). Patenting Genes. International Journal of Applied Philosophy 17 (2):267-275.
Miriam Bentwich (2012). It's About Scientific Secrecy, Dummy: A Better Equilibrium Among Genomics Patenting, Scientific Research and Health Care. [REVIEW] Science and Engineering Ethics 18 (2):263-284.
Frode Kjosavik (2007). From Symbolism to Information? – Decoding the Gene Code. Biology and Philosophy 22 (3):333-349.
Added to index2010-08-24
Total downloads8 ( #138,555 of 1,088,400 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #69,601 of 1,088,400 )
How can I increase my downloads?