Attitudes of university students in Hong Kong about the use of genomic science and technology

New Genetics and Society

Volumn 31, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 323-341

  Hui, Edwin ^a   Chow, Kathy ^a   Leung, Danny ^a   Chan, Hori ^a   Wu, Dorian ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG   (Hong Kong)

Author keywords

ethical, legal, and social implications; genetic enhancement; genetic information; genomic science and technology; GM food

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ATTITUDE TO GENOMIC SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; GENOMICS; HONG KONG; HUMAN; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SOCIAL ASPECT; STUDENT ATTITUDE; UNIVERSITY STUDENT;

EID: 84871281356     PISSN: 14636778     EISSN: 14699915     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/14636778.2012.662040     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Barnett, J., Cooper, H., and Senior, V., 2007. Belief in public efficacy, trust, and attitudes toward modern genetic science. Risk Analysis, 27 (4), 921-933.
2. Barsevick, A.M., et al., 2008. Intention to communicate BRCA1/BRCA2 genetic test results to the family. Journal of Family Psychology, 22 (2), 303-312.
3. Benkendorf, J.L., et al., 1997. Patients' attitudes about autonomy and confidentiality in genetic testing for breast-ovarian cancer susceptibility. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 73 (3), 296-303.
4. Bombard, Y., et al., 2009. Perceptions of genetic discrimination among people at risk for Huntington's disease: a cross sectional survey. British Medical Journal, 338, b2175.
5. Burke, W. and Psaty, B.M., 2007. Personalized medicine in the era of genomics. Journal of the American Medical Association, 298 (14), 1682-1684.
6. Catz, D.S., Green, N.S., and Tobin, J.N., 2005. Attitudes about genetics in underserved, culturally diverse populations. Community Genetics, 8 (3), 161-172.
7. Charmaz, K., 2006. Constructing grounded theory: a practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: Sage.
8. Chen, M. and Li, H., 2007. The consumer's attitude toward genetically modified foods in Taiwan. Food Quality and Preference, 18, 662-674.
9. Christoph, I.B., Bruhn, M., and Roosen, J., 2008. Knowledge, attitudes towards and acceptability of genetic modification in Germany. Appetite, 51, 58-68.
10. Claes, E., et al., 2003. Communication with close and distant relatives in the context of genetic testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer in cancer patients. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 116 (1), 11-19.
11. Evans, J., 2007. Health care in the age of genetic medicine. Journal of American Medical Association, 298 (22), 2670-2672.
12. Foster, M.W., Royal, C.D.M., and Sharp, R.R., 2006. The routinisation of genomics and genetics implications for ethical practices. Journal of Medical Ethics, 32, 635-638.
13. Furu, T., et al., 1993. Attitudes towards prenatal diagnosis and selective abortion among patients with retinitis pimentos or choroideremia as well as among their relatives. Clinical Genetics, 43 (3), 160-165.
14. Garel, M., et al., 2002. Ethical decision-making in prenatal diagnosis and termination of pregnancy: a qualitative survey among physicians and midwives. Prenatal Diagnosis, 22, 811-817.
15. Green, J., et al., 1997. Family communication and genetic counseling: the case of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 6, 45-60.
16. Hui, E., 1999. A Confucian ethic of medical futility. In: R. Fan, ed. Confucian bioethics. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 127-163.
17. Hui, E., et al., 2009. Opinion survey of the Hong Kong general public regarding genomic science and technology and their ethical and social implications. New Genetics and Society, 28 (4), 381-400.
18. Human Genome Project (HGP) Informaton, 2008. Ethical, Legal and Social Issues [online]. US Department of Genome Programs. Available from: http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human-Genome/elsi/elsi.shtml [Accessed 17 March 2010].
19. Iredale, R. and Longley, M.J., 2000. Reflections on citizens' juries: the case of the citizens' jury on genetic testing for common disorders. Journal of Consumer Studies and Home Economics, 24, 41-47.
20. Jallinoja, P., et al., 1998. Attitudes towards genetic testing: analysis of contradictions. Social Science & Medicine, 46, 1367-1374.
21. Kenen, R., Arden-Jones, A., and Eeles, R., 2004. We are talking, but are they listening? Communication patterns in families with a history of breast/ovarian cancer (HBOC). Psycho-oncology, 13, 335-345.
22. Leung, T., et al., 2004. Attitudes towards termination of pregnancy among Hong Kong Chinese women attending prenatal diagnosis counselling clinic. Prenatal Diagnosis, 24 (7), 546-551.
23. Marteau, T.M., 1993. Psychological consequence of screening for Down's syndrome. British Medical Journal, 307 (6897), 146-147.
24. Midden, C., et al., 2002. The structure of public perceptions. In: M.W. Bauer and G. Gaskell, eds. Biotechnology: the making of a global controversy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 203-223.
25. Ness, D.L., et al., 2004. Faces of genetic discrimination: how genetic discrimination affects real people [online]. Washington, DC: Coalition for Genetic Fairness. Available from: http://www.nationalpartnership.org/site/ DocServer/FacesofGeneticDiscrimination.pdf?docID=971 [Accessed 27 February 2010].
26. Pennings, G. and van Steirteghem, A., 2004. The subsidiarity principle in the context of embryonic stem cell research. Human Reproduction, 19 (5), 1060-1064.
27. Pentz, R.D., et al., 2005. Hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer family members' perceptions about the duty to inform and health professionals' role in disseminating genetic information. Genetic Testing, 9 (3), 261-268.
28. Stoffel, E.M., et al., 2008. Sharing genetic test results in Lynch Syndrome: communication with close and distant relatives. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, 6 (3), 333-338.
29. Sturgis, P. and Allum, N., 2004. Science in society: re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes. Public Understanding of Science, 13 (1), 55-75.
30. Sturgis, P., Cooper, H., and Fife-Schaw, C., 2005. Attitudes to biotechnology: estimating the opinions of a better-informed public. New Genetics and Society, 24 (1), 31-56.
31. Traulsen, J.M., Bjórnsdóttir, I., and Almarsdóttir, A.B., 2008. I'm happy if I can help: public views on future medicines and gene-based therapy in Iceland. Community Genetics, 11, 2-10.
32. Turney, J., 1995. The public understanding of genetics - where next? European Journal of Genetics in Society, 1 (2), 5-20.
33. Wang, Z., 2003. Knowledge of food safety and consumption decision: an empirical study on consumer in Tianjing, China. China Rural Economy, 4, 41-48.
34. Wertz, D.C. and Knoppers, B.M., 2002. Serious genetic disorders: can or should they be defined? American Journal of Medical Genetics, 108, 29-35.
35. Wilkinson, J.M. and Targonski, P.V., 2003. Health promotion in a changing world: preparing for the genomics revolution. American Journal of Health Promotion, 18 (2), 157-161.
36. Williams, S., et al., 2009. The genetic town hall: public opinion about research on gene, environment and research. Washington, DC: Genetics and Public Policy Center, Johns Hopkins University.
37. Zhang, X., 2005. Chinese consumers' concerns over food safety: case of Tianjin. Journal of International Food & Agribusiness Marketing, 17 (1), 57-69.