↓ Skip to main content

Military genomic testing: proportionality, expected benefits, and the connection between genotypes and phenotypes

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Law and the Biosciences, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 tweeters

Readers on

mendeley
13 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.
Title
Military genomic testing: proportionality, expected benefits, and the connection between genotypes and phenotypes
Published in
Journal of Law and the Biosciences, December 2014
DOI 10.1093/jlb/lsu035
Pubmed ID
Authors

Charles H. Pence

Abstract

Mehlman and Li offer a framework for approaching the bioethical issues raised by the military use of genomics that is compellingly grounded in both the contemporary civilian and military ethics of medical research, arguing that military commanders must be bound by the two principles of paternalism and proportionality. I agree fully. But I argue here that this is a much higher bar than we may fully realize. Just as the principle of proportionality relies upon a thorough assessment of harms caused and military advantage gained, the use of genomic research, on Mehlman and Li's view, will require an accurate understanding of the connection between genotypes and phenotypes - accurate enough to ameliorate the risk undertaken by our armed forces in being subject to such research. Recent conceptual work in evolutionary theory and the philosophy of biology, however, renders it doubtful that such knowledge is forthcoming. The complexity of the relationship between genotypic factors and realized traits (the so-called 'G→P map') makes the estimation of potential military advantage, as well as potential harm to our troops, incredibly challenging. Such fundamental conceptual challenges call into question our ability to ever satisfactorily satisfy the demands of a sufficiently rigorous ethical standard.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 8%
Unknown 12 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor 1 8%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 8%
Student > Postgraduate 1 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 8%
Unspecified 1 8%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 8 62%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 2 15%
Unspecified 2 15%
Arts and Humanities 1 8%
Unknown 8 62%

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 30 January 2015.
All research outputs
#991,162
of 4,691,566 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Law and the Biosciences
#32
of 68 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,142
of 160,525 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Law and the Biosciences
#5
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 4,691,566 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 68 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 160,525 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.