Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-05T23:04:01.116Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Epigenetic Exceptionalism

Currents in Contemporary Bioethics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Mark A. Rothstein
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Emerging fields of science often create new challenges for ethics and law. In assessing the broader societal implications of scientific discoveries, a reasonable analytical starting point is determining how the discoveries compare with existing science. If the new field is substantially similar to an established one, then the ethical and legal analyses are likely to be comparable. On the other hand, if the new scientific developments are extraordinary in kind or degree, then a new analytical framework and new approaches to ethics and law may be necessary.

Type
JLME Column
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 41 , Issue 3 , Fall 2013 , pp. 733 - 736
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Murray, T. H., “Genetic Exceptionalism and ‘Future Diaries’: Is Genetic Information Different from Other Medical Information?” in Rothstein, M. A., ed., Genetic Secrets: Protecting Privacy and Confidentiality in the Genetic Era (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997).Google Scholar
See, e.g., Gostin, L. O. Hodge, J. G. Jr., “Genetic Privacy and the Law: An End to Genetics Exceptionalism,” Jurimetrics Journal 40, no. 1 (1999): 21–58; Hellman, D., “What Makes Genetic Discrimination Exceptional?” American Journal of Law & Medicine 29, no. 1 (2003): 77–116; Lemmens, T., “Selective Justice, Genetic Discrimination, and Insurance: Should We Single Out Genes in Our Laws?” McGill Law Journal 45, no. 2 (2000): 347–412; Suter, S. M., “The Allure and Peril of Genetic Exceptionalism: Do We Need Special Genetics Legislation?” Washington University Law Quarterly 79, no. 3 (2001): 669–748.Google Scholar
Rothstein, M. A., “Genetic Exceptionalism and Legislative Pragmatism,” Hastings Center Report 35, no. 4 (2005): 27–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Rothstein, M. A. Cai, Y. Marchant, G. E., “The Ghost in Our Genes: Legal and Ethical Implications of Epigenetics,” Health Matrix 19, no. 1 (2009): 1–62.Google Scholar
Jirtle, R. L. Skinner, M. K., “Environmental Epigenomics and Disease Susceptibility,” Nature Reviews Genetics 8, no. 2 (2007): 253–262; Szyf, M., “The Dynamic Epigenome and Its Implications in Toxicology,” Journal of Toxicological Science 100, no. 1 (2007): 7–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Jirtle, R. L. Tyson, F. L., eds., Environmental Epigenomics in Health and Disease (New York: Springer-Verlag, 2013).Google Scholar
Bird, A., “DNA Methylation Patterns and Epigenetic Memory,” Genes and Development 16, no. 1 (2002): 6–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, R. E. Goodman, J. I., “Epigenetics and DNA Methylation Come of Age in Toxicology,” Toxicological Sciences 67, no. 1 (2002): 11–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vertino, P. M. et al., “DNMT1 Is a Component of a Multiprotein DNA Replication Complex,” Cell Cycle 1, no. 6 (2002): 416–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, P. A. Baylin, S. B., “The Epigenomics of Cancer,” Cell 128, no. 4 (2007): 683–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Jirtle, Skinner, , supra note 6, at 258.Google Scholar
Dolinoy, D. C. Weidman, J. R. Jirtle, R. L., “Epigenetic Gene Regulation: Linking Early Developmental Environment to Adult Disease,” Reproductive Toxicology 23, no. 4 (2007): 297–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feinberg, A. P., “Epigenetics at the Epicenter of Modern Medicine,” JAMA 299, no. 11 (2008): 1345–1350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herceg, Z. Hainaut, P., “Genetic and Epigenetic Alterations as Biomarkers for Cancer Detection, Diagnosis and Prognosis,” Molecular Oncology 1, no. 1 (2007): 26–41; see Szyf, , supra note 6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Id. (Szyf), at 13–14.Google Scholar
See Jirtle, Skinner, , supra note 6, at 256.Google Scholar
Id.; see Szyf, , supra note 6.Google Scholar
See Hedlund, M., “Epigenetic Responsibility,” Medicine Studies 3, no. 3 (2012): 171–183; Khan, F., “Preserving Human Potential as Freedom: A Framework for Regulating Epigenetic Harms,” Health Matrix 20, no. 2 (2010): 259–323.Google Scholar
Pembrey, M. E. et al., “Sex-Specific, Male-Line Transgenerational Responses in Humans,” European Journal of Human Genetics 14, no. 1 (2006): 159–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Sharp, R. R. Marchant, G. E. Grodsky, J. A., eds., Genomics and Environmental Regulation: Science, Ethics, and Law (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2008).Google Scholar
GINA §§ 101(4)(A), 201(4)(A).Google Scholar