↓ Skip to main content

Ethical issues raised by personalized nutrition based on genetic information

Overview of attention for article published in Genes & Nutrition, March 2006
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 (#35 of 399)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
119 Mendeley
Title
Ethical issues raised by personalized nutrition based on genetic information
Published in
Genes & Nutrition, March 2006
DOI 10.1007/bf02829932
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ulf Görman

Abstract

Four principles are taken as basis for the ethical analysis: autonomy, nonmaleficence, beneficence, and justice. Health is understood as a limited aspect of wellbeing. Food is understood as an important aspect of wellbeing, not only an instrument for health. Modern society is characterized by a tendency to identify wellbeing with external rather than subjective circumstances, to identify wellbeing with health, and to create exaggerated health expectations. Based upon this understanding, aspects of personalized nutrition are discussed: genetic testing, counselling, and development of special dietary products. Today the predictive value of genetic tests for personal nutrition is limited, and experimental at best. Recommendations for the future: Personalized nutrition must be based on solid knowledge. Phenotypic analyses should be used when adequate. When a genetic test can have a clear advantage, this should be preferred. Opportunistic screening should only be used when clearly beneficial. Specially trained persons should collect information from genetic tests and carry through councelling on a personal basis. Marketing of genetic tests directly sold to the public should be discouraged. Development of special products for personalized nutrition may be necessary in some cases. However, this may also lead to a medicalization of diet.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 119 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 <1%
Unknown 118 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 38 32%
Student > Bachelor 28 24%
Student > Postgraduate 12 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 7%
Researcher 7 6%
Other 11 9%
Unknown 15 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 20 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 8%
Social Sciences 8 7%
Other 10 8%
Unknown 18 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 04 May 2023.
All research outputs
#1,886,204
of 23,671,454 outputs
Outputs from Genes & Nutrition
#35
of 399 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,449
of 72,910 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genes & Nutrition
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,671,454 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 399 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 72,910 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them