↓ Skip to main content

Human growth hormone and the temptations of biomedical enhancement

Overview of attention for article published in Sociology of Health & Illness, March 2004
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
68 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Human growth hormone and the temptations of biomedical enhancement
Published in
Sociology of Health & Illness, March 2004
DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9566.2004.00386.x
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

It is likely that humans have sought enhancements for themselves or their children for as long as they have recognised that improvements in individuals are a possibility. One genre of self-improvement in modern society can be called 'biomedical enhancements'. These include drugs, surgery and other medical interventions aimed at improving the mind, body or performance. This paper uses the case of human growth hormone (hGH) to examine the social nature of enhancements. Synthetic hGH was developed in 1985 by the pharmaceutical industry and was approved by the FDA for very specific uses, particularly treatment of growth hormone deficiency. However, it has also been promoted for a number of 'off label' uses, most of which can be deemed enhancements. Drugs approved for one treatment pave the way for use as enhancements for other problems. Claims have been made for hGH as a treatment for idiopathic shortness, as an anti-ageing agent and to improve athletic performance. Using the hGH case, we are able to distinguish three faces of biomedical enhancement: normalisation, repair and performance edge. Given deeply ingrained social and individual goals in American society, the temptations of biomedical enhancements provide inducement for individuals and groups to modify their situation. We examine the temptations of enhancement in terms of issues such as unnaturalness, fairness, risk and permanence, and shifting social meanings. In our conclusions, we outline the potentials and pitfalls of biomedical enhancement.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
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 demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 3 4%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 64 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 15%
Researcher 7 10%
Professor 6 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Other 12 18%
Unknown 14 21%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 16 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 6%
Psychology 4 6%
Sports and Recreations 4 6%
Other 14 21%
Unknown 18 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 30 December 2012.
All research outputs
#15,260,208
of 22,691,736 outputs
Outputs from Sociology of Health & Illness
#1,615
of 1,970 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,857
of 54,628 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sociology of Health & Illness
#6
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,691,736 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,970 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 54,628 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.