Groups as gatekeepers to genomic research: Conceptually confusing, morally hazardous, and practically useless
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 8 (2):183-200 (1998)
: Some argue that human groups have a stake in the outcome of population-genomics research and that the decision to participate in such research should therefore be subject to group permission. It is not possible, however, to obtain prior group permission, because the actual human groups under study, human demes, are unidentifiable before research begins. Moreover, they lack moral standing. If identifiable social groups with moral standing are used as proxies for demes, group approval could be sought, but at the expense of unfairly exposing these surrogates to risks from which prior group approval is powerless to protect them. Unless population genomics can proceed without targeting socially defined groups, or can find other ways of protecting them, it may fall to individuals to protect the interests of the groups they care about, and to scientists to warn their subjects of the need to do so
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(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
Richard R. Sharp & Morris W. Foster (2000). Involving Study Populations in the Review of Genetic Research. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 28 (1):41-51.
Jason Scott Robert & Andrea Smith (2004). Toxic Ethics: Environmental Genomics and the Health of Populations. Bioethics 18 (6):493–514.
Eric T. Juengst (2004). FACE Facts: Why Human Genetics Will Always Provoke Bioethics. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 32 (2):267-275.
Brian Schrag (2006). Research with Groups: Group Rights, Group Consent, and Collaborative Research. Science and Engineering Ethics 12 (3):511-521.
Richard R. Sharp & Morris W. Foster (2000). Involving Study Populations in the Review of Genetic Research. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 28 (1):41-51.
Similar books and articles
Neil A. Granitz & James C. Ward (2001). Actual and Perceived Sharing of Ethical Reasoning and Moral Intent Among in-Group and Out-Group Members. Journal of Business Ethics 33 (4):299 - 322.
Paul Sheehy (2006). Holding Them Responsible. Midwest Studies in Philosophy 30 (1):74–93.
Martha Nussbaum (2003). The Complexity of Groups: A Comment on Jorge Valadez. Philosophy and Social Criticism 29 (1):57-69.
R. W. Brimlow (1996). On Groups, Group Action and Preferential Treatment. Journal of Philosophical Research 21:341-376.
James J. Cappel & John C. Windsor (2000). Ethical Decision Making: A Comparison of Computer- Supported and Face-to-Face Group. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 28 (2):95 - 107.
Lori Verstegen Ryan & Mark A. Ciavarella (2002). Tapping the Source of Moral Approbation: The Moral Referent Group. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 38 (1-2):179 - 192.
Richard R. Sharp & Morris W. Foster (2007). Grappling with Groups: Protecting Collective Interests in Biomedical Research. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 32 (4):321 – 337.
Daniel M. Hausman (2007). Group Risks, Risks to Groups, and Group Engagement in Genetics Research. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 17 (4):351-369.
Gordon R. Mitchell (2001). Defining the Subject of Consent in DNA Research. Journal of Medical Humanities 22 (1):41-53.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads16 ( #229,060 of 1,907,660 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #463,516 of 1,907,660 )
How can I increase my downloads?