↓ Skip to main content

Do we know enough? A scientific and ethical analysis of the basis for genetic-based personalized nutrition

Overview of attention for article published in Genes & Nutrition, March 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#45 of 402)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
6 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
57 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
222 Mendeley
Title
Do we know enough? A scientific and ethical analysis of the basis for genetic-based personalized nutrition
Published in
Genes & Nutrition, March 2013
DOI 10.1007/s12263-013-0338-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ulf Görman, John C. Mathers, Keith A. Grimaldi, Jennie Ahlgren, Karin Nordström

Abstract

This article discusses the prospects and limitations of the scientific basis for offering personalized nutrition advice based upon individual genetic information. Two divergent scientific positions are presented, with an ethical comment. The crucial question is whether the current knowledge base is sufficiently strong for taking an ethically responsible decision to offer personalized nutrition advice based upon gene-diet-health interaction. According to the first position, the evidence base for translating the outcomes of nutrigenomics research into personalized nutritional advice is as yet immature. There is also limited evidence that genotype-based dietary advice will motivate appropriate behavior changes. Filling the gaps in our knowledge will require larger and better randomized controlled trials. According to the second position, personalized nutrition must be evaluated in relation to generally accepted standard dietary advice-partly derived from epidemiological observations and usually not proven by clinical trials. With personalized nutrition, we cannot demand stronger evidence. In several specific cases of gene-diet interaction, it may be more beneficial for individuals with specific genotypes to follow personalized advice rather than general dietary recommendations. The ethical comment, finally, considers the ethical aspects of deciding how to proceed in the face of such uncertainty. Two approaches for an ethically responsible way forward are proposed. Arguing from a precautionary approach, it is suggested that personalized dietary advice should be offered only when there is strong scientific evidence for health effects, followed by stepwise evaluation of unforeseen behavioral and psychological effects. Arguing from theoretical and applied ethics as well as psychology, it is also suggested that personalized advice should avoid paternalism and instead focus on supporting the autonomous choice of each person.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 222 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 <1%
Luxembourg 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 218 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 64 29%
Student > Bachelor 48 22%
Researcher 18 8%
Student > Postgraduate 15 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 6%
Other 32 14%
Unknown 31 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 42 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 40 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 39 18%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 25 11%
Social Sciences 9 4%
Other 30 14%
Unknown 37 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 September 2022.
All research outputs
#2,369,972
of 24,648,202 outputs
Outputs from Genes & Nutrition
#45
of 402 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,962
of 199,527 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genes & Nutrition
#2
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,648,202 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 402 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 199,527 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.