Types of genetic determinism in direct-to-consumer genetic testing for health

IF 4.9 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
{"title":"Types of genetic determinism in direct-to-consumer genetic testing for health","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.socscimed.2024.117376","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Prior research has challenged genetic determinism by highlighting the complex ways lay people engage with genetics. However, most of these critiques took place prior to the availability of direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic health testing and were based on reactions to genetic testing administered in a clinical context due to either symptoms or family history. Today, many lay people interact with genetic health information outside of medicine, and often without pre-existing symptoms or family history. This suggests the need to revisit genetic determinism in the context of this new mode of public engagement with genetic information about health. In this paper we examine how a sample of 39 people who had previously taken a DTC genetic test for health make sense of their results. We find genetic determinism is prominent, but takes on several distinct forms, including <em>protective determinism</em>, <em>motivating determinism</em>, and <em>absolute determinism</em>. Considering this, we argue that genetic determinism should not be treated as a singular or fixed concept and cannot be dismissed as insignificant, given its continued salience for DTC genetic test-takers. Our analysis also pays particular attention to how test-takers interpret negative results (i.e., no elevated risks detected), as this is a common outcome of DTC genetic tests but has not been a focus of prior research.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49122,"journal":{"name":"Social Science & Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Science & Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027795362400830X","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Prior research has challenged genetic determinism by highlighting the complex ways lay people engage with genetics. However, most of these critiques took place prior to the availability of direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic health testing and were based on reactions to genetic testing administered in a clinical context due to either symptoms or family history. Today, many lay people interact with genetic health information outside of medicine, and often without pre-existing symptoms or family history. This suggests the need to revisit genetic determinism in the context of this new mode of public engagement with genetic information about health. In this paper we examine how a sample of 39 people who had previously taken a DTC genetic test for health make sense of their results. We find genetic determinism is prominent, but takes on several distinct forms, including protective determinism, motivating determinism, and absolute determinism. Considering this, we argue that genetic determinism should not be treated as a singular or fixed concept and cannot be dismissed as insignificant, given its continued salience for DTC genetic test-takers. Our analysis also pays particular attention to how test-takers interpret negative results (i.e., no elevated risks detected), as this is a common outcome of DTC genetic tests but has not been a focus of prior research.
直接面向消费者的健康基因检测中的基因决定论类型。
先前的研究通过强调非专业人士接触遗传学的复杂方式,对遗传决定论提出了质疑。然而,这些批评大多发生在直接面向消费者(DTC)的基因健康检测出现之前,而且是基于临床环境下因症状或家族史而对基因检测的反应。如今,许多非专业人士在医学之外与遗传健康信息互动,而且往往没有预先存在的症状或家族史。这表明,有必要在这种公众参与基因健康信息的新模式下重新审视基因决定论。在本文中,我们抽样调查了 39 位曾经接受过 DTC 健康基因检测的人是如何理解他们的检测结果的。我们发现基因决定论非常突出,但有几种不同的形式,包括保护决定论、动机决定论和绝对决定论。有鉴于此,我们认为基因决定论不应被视为一个单一或固定的概念,鉴于其对 DTC 基因测试者的持续显著性,不能将其视为无足轻重。我们的分析还特别关注测试者如何解释阴性结果(即未检测到风险升高),因为这是 DTC 基因测试的常见结果,但却不是以往研究的重点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Social Science & Medicine
Social Science & Medicine PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
9.10
自引率
5.60%
发文量
762
审稿时长
38 days
期刊介绍: Social Science & Medicine provides an international and interdisciplinary forum for the dissemination of social science research on health. We publish original research articles (both empirical and theoretical), reviews, position papers and commentaries on health issues, to inform current research, policy and practice in all areas of common interest to social scientists, health practitioners, and policy makers. The journal publishes material relevant to any aspect of health from a wide range of social science disciplines (anthropology, economics, epidemiology, geography, policy, psychology, and sociology), and material relevant to the social sciences from any of the professions concerned with physical and mental health, health care, clinical practice, and health policy and organization. We encourage material which is of general interest to an international readership.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信