| Title |
Regulating Genetic Information—Exploring the Options in Legal Theory
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Journal of Health Law, October 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1163/15718093-12341335 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Aisling de Paor |
| Abstract |
Ground-breaking genetic discoveries and technological advances have introduced a new world of genetic exploration, and technological advances have facilitated the discovery of the genetic basis of a myriad of diseases. Genetic testing promises to potentially revolutionise health care and offer the potential ofpersonalised medicine. Genetic technology may also offer the means to detect potential future disabilities. In light of rapid advances in genetic science and technology, questions arise as to whether an appropriate framework exists to protect the interests of individuals, prevent the misuse of genetic information by interested third parties, and also to encourage further advances in genetic science. In consideration of rapidly advancing genetic technologies and the ethical and legal concerns that arise, this article examines the regulation of genetic information, primarily from a theoretical perspective. It explores the preferable mode of regulation and choice of regulatory frameworks in legal theory, including non-discrimination, privacy and property. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 15 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 7% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 3 | 20% |
| Unknown | 5 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 3 | 20% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 7% |
| Philosophy | 1 | 7% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 3 | 20% |
| Unknown | 5 | 33% |
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 06 January 2015.
All research outputs
#22,758,309
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Health Law
#189
of 202 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#233,270
of 273,620 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Health Law
#2
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 202 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 273,620 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.