| Title |
Tensions in ethics and policy created by National Precision Medicine Programs
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Human Genomics, April 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40246-018-0151-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jusaku Minari, Kyle B. Brothers, Michael Morrison |
| Abstract |
Precision medicine promises to use genomics and other data-intensive approaches to improve diagnosis and develop new treatments for major diseases, but also raises a range of ethical and governance challenges. Implementation of precision medicine in "real world" healthcare systems blurs the boundary between research and care. This has implications for the meaning and validity of consent, and increased potential for discrimination, among other challenges. Increased sharing of personal information raises concerns about privacy, commercialization, and public trust. This paper considers national precision medicine schemes from the USA, the UK, and Japan, comparing how these challenges manifest in each national context and examining the range of approaches deployed to mitigate the potential undesirable social consequences. There is rarely a "one size" fits all solution to these complex problems, but the most viable approaches are those which take account of cultural preferences and attitudes, available resources, and the wider political landscape in which national healthcare systems are embedded. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 32 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 5 | 16% |
| Canada | 4 | 13% |
| United States | 3 | 9% |
| Belgium | 2 | 6% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 3% |
| South Africa | 1 | 3% |
| France | 1 | 3% |
| Italy | 1 | 3% |
| Austria | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 13 | 41% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 15 | 47% |
| Scientists | 14 | 44% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 6% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 100 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 100 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 16 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 7% |
| Other | 7 | 7% |
| Other | 18 | 18% |
| Unknown | 35 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 12 | 12% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 12% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 9 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 7% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 16 | 16% |
| Unknown | 40 | 40% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. 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 12 April 2022.
All research outputs
#1,579,655
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Human Genomics
#37
of 564 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,705
of 340,618 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Human Genomics
#1
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 564 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 340,618 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 15 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 93% of its contemporaries.