Informed consent and the shaping of British and U.S. population-based genetic research

Shaping Science and Technology Policy: The Next Generation of Research

Volumn , Issue , 2006, Pages 291-311

  Barr, Michael ^a,b  

^a DURHAM UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84863008031     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: None     Document Type: Chapter

References (39)

1. Annas, G. 2001. Reforming informed consent to genetic research. Journal of the American Medical Association 286:2326-28.
2. Beauchamp, T., and J. Childress. 2001. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. 5th ed. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
3. Berg, K., 2001. DNA sampling and banking in clinical genetics and genetic research. New Genetics and Society 20: 59-68.
4. Beskow, L. M., W. Burke, J. F. Merz. 2001. Informed consent for populationbased research involving genetics. Journal of the American Medical Association 286: 2315-21.
5. Cardozo, B. 1914. Schloendorff v. New York Hospital 211NY127, 129, 105 N. E. 92, 93.
6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2001. Supplemental brochure for population-based research involving genetics: Informed consent: Taking part in population-based genetic research. Available at http:www.cdc.gov.
7. Chadwick. R. 2001. Informed consent and genetic research. In Informed Consent in Medical Research, ed. L. Doyal and J. Tobias, 203-10. London: BMJ Publishing Group.
8. Chadwick, R., and K. Berg. 2001. Solidarity and equity: New ethical frameworks for genetic databases. Nature Review Genetics 2: 318-21.
9. Chase, D., J. Tawn, L. Parker, J. Burn, J., and P. Jonas. 1998. The North Cumbria Community Genetics Project. Journal of Medical Genetics 35: 413.
10. Condit, C. 1999. The Meanings of the Gene. Madison: Univ. of Wisconsin Press.
11. CORE. 1995. Findings of street-poll for NCCGP public consultations. CORE pamphlet. Barrow-in-Furness, Cumbria.
12. Cragg Ross Dawson. 2000. Public Perceptions of the Collection of Human Biological Samples. Report prepared for the Wellcome Trust and Medical Research Council.
13. Dedschenes, M., G. Cardinal, B. M. Knoppers, and K. C. Glass, 2001. Human genetic research, DNA banking and consent: A question of form? Clinical Genetics 59: 221-39.
14. Douglas, M. 1997. No free gifts. Foreword to M. Mauss, The Gift, the Form, and Reason for Exchange in Archaic Societies, vii-xviii. Trans. W. D. Halls. London:Routledge.
15. Draft Protocol for Biobank UK: A study of genes, environment and health. 2002. Available at http://wellcome.ac.uk. Gene Trust. 2002. See: http://www.dna.com.
16. Goldstein, A., and R. Weiss. 2003. Howard Univ. plans genetics database. Washington Post Online, 27 May. Available at http://www.washingtonpost.com.
17. Greely, H. 2001. Informed consent and other ethical issues in human population genetics. Annual Review of Genetics 35: 785-800.
18. Haimes, E., and M. Whong-Barr. 2001-2003. A comparative study of participation and non-participation in the North Cumbria Community Genetics Project. Project Grant funded by the Wellcome Trust.
19. Haimes, E., and M. Whong-Barr. 2003. Competing perspectives on reasons for participation and nonparticipation in the North Cumbria Community Genetics Project. In DNA Sampling: Ethical, Legal and Social Issues. ed. B. M. Knoppers, 199-216. Leiden: Brill Publishers.
20. Hapgood, R., D. Schickle, and A. Kent. 2001. Consultation with primary health care professionals on the proposed UK population biomedical collection. Report prepared for the Wellcome Trust and the Medical Research Council.
21. Harris, J., and S. Woods. 2000. Rights and responsibilities of individuals participating in medical research. In Informed Consent Medical Research, ed. J. Tobias and L. Doyal, 276-82. London: BMJ Books.
22. House of Lords. 2001. Select Committee on Science and Technology Fourth Report: Human Genetic Databases: Challenges and Opportunities.
23. Human Genetics Commission. 2002. Inside Information: Balancing Interests in the Use of Personal Genetic Data.
24. Juengst, E. T. 1998. Groups as gatekeepers to genomic research: Conceptually confusing, morally hazardous, and practically useless. Journal of the Kennedy Institute of Ethics 8:183-200.
25. Kerr, A., S. Cunningham-Burley, and A. Amos. 1998. The new genetics and health: Mobilizing lay expertise. Public Understanding of Science 7: 41-60.
26. Khoury, M. 2001. Informed consent for population research involving genetics:A public health perspective. Available at http://www.cdc.gov.
27. Medical Research Council. 2001. Human tissue and biological samples for use in research: Operational and ethical guidelines. Available at http://www .mrc.ac.uk/pdf-tissue_guide_fin.pdf.
28. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. 1979. The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. Washington, DC: National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research.
29. Nelkin, D. and M. S. Lindee. 1995. The DNA Mystique: The Gene as Cultural Icon. New York: W. H. Freeman.
30. O'Neill, O. 2002 Autonomy and Trust in Bioethics. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
31. People, Science and Policy Ltd. 2002. Biobank UK: A Question of Trust: A Consultation Exploring and Addressing Questions of Public Trust.
32. Power, M. 1997. The Audit Society. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
33. Reardon, J., 2001 The Human Genome Diversity Project: A case study in coproduction. Social Studies of Science 31: 357-88.
34. Richards, M. 1996. Lay and Professional Knowledge of Genetics and Inheritance. Public Understanding of Science 5: 217-30.
35. Rothman, D. 1991. Strangers at the Bedside: A History of How Law and Bioethics Transformed Medical Decision Making. New York: Basic Books.
36. Steinberg, K., J. Beck, D. Nickerson, M. Garcia-Closas, M. Gallager, M. Caggana, Y. Reid, et al. 2002. DNA Banking for Epidemiological Studies: A Review of Current Practices. Epidemiology, 13: 259-64. Title 45 CFR Part 46: Protection of Human Subjects, 1998. http://206.102 .88.10/ohsrsite.
37. Titmuss, R.M. 1970. The Gift Relationship: From Human Blood to Social Policy. London:Allen & Unwin.
38. Weijer, C., and E. J. Emanuel. 2000. Protecting Communities in Biomedical Research. Science 289: 1142-44.
39. Wolpe, P. 1998. The Triumph of Autonomy in American Bioethics: A Sociological View. In Bioethics and Society: Constructing the Ethical Enterprise, ed. R. DeVries and J. Subedi, 38-59. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.