↓ Skip to main content

WHAT DNA CAN AND CANNOT SAY: PERSPECTIVES OF IMMIGRANT FAMILIES ABOUT THE USE OF GENETIC TESTING IN IMMIGRATION.

Overview of attention for article published in Stanford Law & Policy Review, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
Title
WHAT DNA CAN AND CANNOT SAY: PERSPECTIVES OF IMMIGRANT FAMILIES ABOUT THE USE OF GENETIC TESTING IN IMMIGRATION.
Published in
Stanford Law & Policy Review, January 2015
Pubmed ID
Authors

Llilda P Barata, Helene Starks, Maureen Kelley, Patricia Kuszler, Wylie Burke

Abstract

Genetic technologies are being implemented in areas that extend beyond the field of medicine to address social and legal problems. An emerging example is the implementation of genetic testing in the family petitioning process in immigration policy. This use of genetic testing offers the potential benefits of reducing immigration fraud and making the process more efficient and accessible for immigrants, especially those without documentation. However, little is known about the positive or negative impacts of such testing on immigrant families and their communities. This study collected empirical data through family interviews to understand the experiences and attitudes of individuals who have taken a DNA test to prove a family relationship for immigration purposes. Based on study results, we present a set of recommendations to improve the processes with which DNA testing is applied to immigration cases. We argue that DNA testing might serve as a useful tool for families who lack documentary evidence of a family relationship. However, testing might also reveal sensitive information, such as misattributed parentage, that can damage relationships and cause serious harm to beneficiaries, especially children. Petitioners should be provided with adequate information to form an understanding of the DNA test and its implementation as well as the positive and negative consequences from using it, in order to carefully assess whether DNA testing will help their case. We recommend that additional protections be put in place to safeguard children from the potential impacts of misattributed parentage or disclosure of hidden social adoptions. This research provides empirical evidence to inform policy related to the use of genetic testing in immigration.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users 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 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 32%
Researcher 3 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 11%
Librarian 1 5%
Professor 1 5%
Other 3 16%
Unknown 3 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 21%
Social Sciences 2 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 5%
Other 3 16%
Unknown 6 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 16 December 2019.
All research outputs
#14,728,114
of 25,576,801 outputs
Outputs from Stanford Law & Policy Review
#2
of 2 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#178,893
of 360,623 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Stanford Law & Policy Review
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,576,801 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one scored the same or higher as 0 of them.
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 360,623 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 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