| Title |
Moral Duties of Genomics Researchers: Why Personalized Medicine Requires a Collective Approach
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Trends in Genetics, December 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.tig.2016.11.006 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Shoko Vos, Johannes J.M. van Delden, Paul J. van Diest, Annelien L. Bredenoord |
| Abstract |
Advances in genome sequencing together with the introduction of personalized medicine offer promising new avenues for research and precision treatment, particularly in the field of oncology. At the same time, the convergence of genomics, bioinformatics, and the collection of human tissues and patient data creates novel moral duties for researchers. After all, unprecedented amounts of potentially sensitive information are being generated. Over time, traditional research ethics principles aimed at protecting individual participants have become supplemented with social obligations related to the interests of society and the research enterprise at large, illustrating that genomic medicine is also a social endeavor. In this review we provide a comprehensive assembly of moral duties that have been attributed to genomics researchers and offer suggestions for responsible advancement of personalized genomic cancer care. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 | 2 | 29% |
| United States | 1 | 14% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 14% |
| Canada | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 2 | 29% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 57% |
| Scientists | 3 | 43% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 99 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 2% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 96 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 19 | 19% |
| Researcher | 13 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 9% |
| Other | 8 | 8% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 8 | 8% |
| Other | 22 | 22% |
| Unknown | 20 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 23 | 23% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 20% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 11 | 11% |
| Philosophy | 6 | 6% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 15 | 15% |
| Unknown | 21 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 February 2017.
All research outputs
#7,355,005
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Trends in Genetics
#1,251
of 2,382 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#125,297
of 422,532 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trends in Genetics
#15
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,382 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.5. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 422,532 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.