Direct-to-consumer Genomics and Genetization of Society: Rethinking Identity, Social Relations and Responsibility

Publication type Article
Status Published
Occupation: Head of the Center of Scientific Information Studies in Science, Education and Technologies
Affiliation: Institute of Scientific Information for Social Sciences of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Address: Russian Federation, Moscow
Journal nameSotsiologicheskie issledovaniya
EditionIssue 2

The article reveals some of the socio-humanitarian problems of direct-to-consumer genomics, examines its influence on the understanding of identity, social relations, and the relationship between consumers and healthcare providers. Particular attention is paid to the prognostic specificity of genetic information, which calls into question the traditional ideas about risks and informing in medicine, forming new areas of “self-care” and new areas of responsibility. Two theoretical approaches to assessing the prospects for the development of genomic medicine are considered: empowerment users and increasing biopower. Particular attention is paid to the concept of genetization of society, which could not completely replace the discourse of medicalization in social studies of medicine and bioethics, but showed how new knowledge about the human genome affects social contexts of the development of biomedicine, fits into broader discussions about health management, defines the research agenda.

Keywordsdirect-to-consumer genomics, sociology of medicine, autobiology, bioethics, genetization, medicalization
AcknowledgmentThe research was supported by the grant of Russian Science Foundation, project No. 19-18-00422.
Publication date16.03.2020
Number of characters21815
100 rub.
When subscribing to an article or issue, the user can download PDF, evaluate the publication or contact the author. Need to register.

Number of purchasers: 0, views: 1469

Readers community rating: votes 0

1. Andorno R. (2004) The right not to know: an autonomy based approach. Journal of medical ethics. No 30 (5): 435‑439. DOI: 10.1136/jme.2002.001578.

2. Boyd D. (2014) It's complicated: The social lives of networked teens. Yale University Press.

3. Cherkas L.F. et al. (2010) A survey of UK public interest on internet-based personal genome testing. PLoS ONE. No. 5.E13473. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0013473

4. Finkler K. (2000) Experiencing the New Genetics: Family and Kinship on the Medical Frontier. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

5. Flower M.J., Heath D. (1993) Micro-anatomo politics: Mapping the human genome project. Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry. No. 17(1): 27‑41. DOI: 10.1007/BF01380597

6. Goldsmith L. et al. (2012) Direct-to-consumer genomic testing: systematic review of the literature on user perspectives. European Journal of Human Genetics. No. 20(8): 811‑816. DOI: 10.1038/ejhg.2012.18

7. Greaves D. (2000) The creation of partial patients. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics. No. 9 (1): 23–33. DOI:10.1017/S0963180100001043

8. Green R.C., Farahany N.A. (2014) Regulation: the FDA is overcautious on consumer genomics. Nature News. Vol. 505. No. 7483: 286‑287.

9. Hallowell N. (1999) Doing the Right Thing: Genetic Risk and Responsibility. Sociological Perspectives on the New Genetics. ed. by P. Conrad and J. Gabe. Oxford: Blackwell: 97–120.

10. Harris A., et al. (2016) CyberGenetics: Health genetics and new media. Routledge.

11. Hess V. (2005) Standardizing body temperature: Quantification in hospitals and daily life, 1850–1900 In: Body counts: Medical quantification in historical and sociological perspectives. G. Jorland, A. Opinel, & G. Weisz (eds). Montreal‐Kingston: McGill‐Queen's University Press: 109–126.

12. Kenen R. (1994) The Human Genome Project: Creator of the Potentially Sick, Potentially Vulnerable and Potentially Stigmatized? In: Life and Death Under High Technology Medicine. London: Manchester University Press and Fulbright Commission: 49–64.

13. Lippman A. (1992) Led (astray) by genetic maps: The cartography of the human genome and health care. Social Science & Medicine. No. 35 (12): 1469‑1476. DOI: 10.1016/0277-9536(92)90049-V

14. Lippman A. (1991) Prenatal genetic testing and screening: constructing needs and reinforcing inequities. American Journal of Law and Medicine. No. 17(1&2): 15‑50. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-05544-2_346-1

15. Lucivero F., Prainsack B. (2015) The lifestylisation of healthcare? Consumer genomics and mobile health as technologies for healthy lifestyle. Applied & translational genomics. No. 4: 44‑49. DOI:10.1016/j.atg.2015.02.001

16. Raz A.E., et al. (2014) Making responsible life plans: cultural differences in lay attitudes toward predictive genetic testing in late-onset diseases. In: Genetics as Social Practice: Transdisciplinary Views on Science and Culture: 181‑198.

17. Rosenberg C. (2009) Managed fear. The Lancet. Vol. 373. No. 9666: 802–803.

18. Stempsey W.E. (2006) The geneticization of diagnostics. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy. No. 9(2): 193‑200. DOI: 10.1007/s11019-005-5292-7

19. Timmermans S., Buchbinder M. (2010) Patients-in-waiting: Living between Sickness and Health in the Genomics Era. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. No. 51(4): 408‑423. DOI: 10.1177/0022146510386794

20. Turrini M., Prainsack B. (2016) Beyond clinical utility: the multiple values of DTC genetics. Applied & translational genomics. No. 8: 4‑8. DOI: 10.1016/j.atg.2016.01.008

21. Watson J. (1996) Time. Special Issue. No. 14: 148.

22. Weiner K. et al.  (2017) Have we seen the geneticisation of society? Expectations and evidence. Sociology of health & illness. No. 39 (7): 989‑1004. DOI: 10.1111/1467-9566.1255.

Система Orphus