Nutrigenomics 2.0: The Need for Ongoing and Independent Evaluation and Synthesis of Commercial Nutrigenomics Tests' Scientific Knowledge Base for Responsible Innovation

OMICS A Journal of Integrative Biology

Volumn 20, Issue 2, 2016, Pages 65-68

  Pavlidis, Cristiana ^a   Nebel, Jean Christophe ^b   Katsila, Theodora ^a   Patrinos, George P ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PATRAS   (Greece)

^b KINGSTON UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMMERCIAL PHENOMENA; DIETETICS; ETHICIST; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; GOVERNMENT; HUMAN; INDUSTRY; KNOWLEDGE BASE; NUTRIGENOMICS; PERSONALIZED MEDICINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; SCIENTIST; SOCIETY; EVALUATION STUDY;

EVALUATION STUDIES AS TOPIC; HUMANS; KNOWLEDGE BASES; NUTRIGENOMICS; PRECISION MEDICINE;

EID: 84958632855     PISSN: 15362310     EISSN: 15578100     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1089/omi.2015.0170     Document Type: Review

References (17)

1. Camp KM, and Trujillo E. (2014). Position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics: Nutritional genomics. J Acad Nutr Diet 114, 299-312.
2. De Vries R. (2004). How can we help? From sociology in bioethics to sociology of bioethics. J LawMed Ethics 32, 279-292.
3. Ferguson LR, Hu R, Lam WJ, Munday K, and Triggs CM. (2010). Tailoring foods to match peoples genes in New Zealand: Opportunities for collaboration. World Rev Nutr Diet 101, 169-175.
4. Ferguson LR. (2016). The value of nutrigenomics science. OMICS (this issue).
5. Guston DH. (2015). Responsible innovation: Who could be against that? J Responsible Innovation 2, 1-4.
6. Hedges LV, and Olkin I. (1985). Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis. Academic Press: New York.
7. Imai K, Kricka LJ, and Fortina P. (2011) Concordance study of 3 direct-To-consumer genetic-Testing services. Clin Chem 57, 518-521.
8. Lanara Z, Giannopoulou E, Fullen M, Kostantinopoulos E, Nebel JC, Kalofonos HP, Patrinos GP, and Pavlidis C. (2013). Comparative study and meta-Analysis of meta-Analysis studies for the correlation of genomic markers with early cancer detection. Hum Genomics 7, 14.
9. Ozdemir V, Suarez-Kurtz G, Stenne R, Somogyi AA, Someya T, Kayaalp SO, and Kolker E. (2009). Risk assessment and communication tools for genotype associations with multifactorial phenotypes: The concept of edge effect and cultivating an ethical bridge between omics innovations and society. OMICS 13, 43-61.
10. Patrinos GP, Baker DJ, Al-Mulla F, Vasiliou V, and Cooper DN. (2013). Genetic tests obtainable through pharmacies: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Hum Genomics 7, 17.
11. Pavlidis C, Lanara Z, Balasopoulou A, Nebel JC, Katsila T, and Patrinos GP. (2015). Meta-Analysis of genes in commercially available nutrigenomic tests denotes lack of association with dietary intake and nutrient-related pathologies. OMICS 19, 512-520.
12. Petersen A. (2013). From bioethics to a sociology of bio-knowledge. Soc Sci Med 98, 264-270.
13. Rasmussen MD, Deshpande MS, Karypis G, Johnson J, Crow JA, and Retzel EF. (2003). wCLUTO: A Web-enabled clustering toolkit. Plant Physiol 133, 510-516.
14. Rosenthal R. (1984). Meta-Analytic Procedures for Social Research. Sage Publications: Beverly Hills.
15. Thoreau F, and Delvenne P. (2012). Have STS fallen into a political void? Depoliticisation and engagement in the case of nanotechnologies. Politica Sociedade 11, 205-226.
16. van Oudheusden M. (2014). Where are the politics in responsible innovation? European governance, technology assessments, and beyond. J Responsible Innovation 1: 67-86.
17. Williams RJ. (1956). Biochemical Individuality. John Wiley & Sons: New York.