Community engagement in genetic research: Results of the first public consultation for the Quebec CARTaGENE project

Community Genetics

Volumn 10, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 147-158

  Godard, Béatrice ^a   Marshall, Jennifer ^b   Laberge, Claude ^c  

^a UNIVERSITÉ DE MONTRÉAL   (Canada)

^b DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITÉ LAVAL   (Canada)

Author keywords

Biobanks; Community engagement in genetic research; Quebec CARTaGENE project

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANADA; COMMUNITY; COMPREHENSION; CONFIDENTIALITY; CONSULTATION; DONOR; EXPERT SYSTEM; FEMALE; GENETIC DATABASE; GENETICS; HUMAN; HUMAN RIGHTS; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; KNOWLEDGE; MALE; MASS COMMUNICATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLIC OPINION; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; SOCIETY;

ADULT; AGED; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; CONFIDENTIALITY; CULTURAL DIVERSITY; DATA COLLECTION; ETHICS; ETHICS, RESEARCH; ETHNIC GROUPS; GENE THERAPY; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; MOLECULAR BIOLOGY; QUEBEC; QUESTIONNAIRES; RESEARCH; TELEPHONE;

EID: 34250650978     PISSN: 14222795     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1159/000101756     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Cragg Ross Dawson: Public perceptions of human biological samples. Report prepared for The Medical Research Council and The Wellcome Trust. 2000. www.wellcome.ac.uk/en/1/biovenpopethpub.html.
2. Weijer C, Emanuel EJ: Protecting communities in biomedical research. Science 2000;289:1142-1144.
3. Human Genetics Commission: Public attitudes to human genetic information. 2001. www.hgc.gov.uk.
4. People Science and Policy Ltd (PSP): Bio-Bank UK: a question of trust. Report prepared for The Medical Research Council and The Wellcome Trust. 2002. www.wellcome.ac.uk/en/1/biovenpopethtwo.html.
5. Benzecri JP: Correspondence Analysis Handbook. New York, Dekker, 1994.
6. Godard B, Marshall J, Laberge C, Knoppers BM: Strategies for consulting with the community: the cases of four large-scale genetic databases. Sci Eng Ethics 2004;10:457-477.
7. Government of Canada: Biostrategy: public opinion research into genetic privacy issues. 2003. www.biostrategy.gc.ca.
8. Furr LA: Perceptions of genetics research as harmful to society: differences among samples of African-Americans and European-Americans. Genet Test 2002;6:25-30.
9. McQuillan GM, Porter KS, Agelli M, Kington R: Consent for genetic research in a general population: the NHANES experience. Genet Med 2003;5:35-42.
10. Goodson ML, Vernon BG: A study of public opinion on the use of tissue samples from living subjects for clinical research. J Clin Pathol 2004;57:135-138.
11. Hoeyer K, Olofsson BO, Mjorndal T, Lynoe N: Informed consent and biobanks: a population-based study of attitudes towards tissue donation for genetic research. Scand J Public Health 2004;32:224-229.
12. Haddow G, Cunningham-Burley S, Bruce A, Parry S: Generation Scotland Preliminary consultation exercise 2003-04: public and stakeholder views from focus groups and interviews. Edinburgh, ESRC Innogen Centre, Institute for the Study of Science, Technology and Innovation, University of Edinburgh, 2005.
13. Estonian Genome Project (EGP): Public opinion about the Estonian Genome Project. 2003. www.geenivaramu.ee.
14. Wang SS, Fridinger F, Sheedy KM, Khoury MJ: Public attitudes regarding the donation and storage of blood specimens for genetic research. Community Genet 2001;4:18-26.
15. Kettis-Lindblad A, Ring L, Viberth E, Hansson MG: Genetic research and donation of tissue samples to biobanks. What do potential sample donors in the Swedish general public think? Eur J Public Health 2006;16:433-440.
16. Burton B: Proposed genetic database on Tongans opposed. BMJ 2002;324:443.
17. Dalton R: Tribe blasts 'exploitation' of blood samples. Nature 2002;420:111.
18. Philipkoski K: Framingham gene project killed. Wired news. 2001. www.wirednews.com/news/Med-Tech/.
19. Burhansstipanov L, Bemis LT, Dignan MB: Native American cancer education: genetic and cultural issues. J Cancer Educ 2001;16:143.
20. Levitt M: Public consultation in bioethics. What's the point of asking the public when they have neither scientific nor ethical expertise? Health Care Anal 2003;11:15-25.
21. Burgess M: What difference does public consultation make to ethics? Democracy, ethics and genetics: consultation, deliberation and modelling. 2003. gels.ethics.ubc.ca.
22. Juengst E: What 'community review' can and cannot do. J Law Med Ethics 2000;28:52-54.
23. Reiser S: The public and the expert in biomedical policy controversies; in Hanna KE (ed): Biomedical Politics. Washington, National Academy Press, 1991, pp 325-331.
24. National Institutes of Health: Points to consider when planning a genetic study that involves members of named populations. 2002. www.nih.gov/sigs/ bioethics/named_populations.html.
25. Foster MW, Sharp RR, Freeman WL, Chino M, Bernsten D, Carter TH: The role of community review in evaluating the risks of human genetic variation in research. Am J Hum Genet 1999;64:1719-1727.
26. Emmanuel E: Where civic republicanism and deliberative democracy meet. Hastings Center Rep 1996;26:12-14.
27. Quebec Commission on Ethics in Science and Technology: Opinion statement: the ethical issues of genetic databases. Towards democratic and responsible regulation. 2003. www.ethique.gouv.qc.ca.
28. Burgess M, Tansey J: Complexity of public interest in ethical analysis of genetics: ethical reflections on salmon genetics/aquaculture. Discussion paper for the March 2005 workshop for 'Democracy, ethics and genetics: consultation, deliberation and modelling'. 2005. gels.ethics.ubc.ca.