The public understanding of science or the scientific understanding of the public? A review of the social context of the `new genetics'

Abstract

The `new genetics' have great potential for improving human health. In order for this potential to be realized, attempts to improve the public understanding of science should be complemented by attempts to improve our scientific understanding of the public. It is important to investigate existing popular understandings and practices, in relation to the role of heredity in human disease, chance and calculation of cost benefit ratios in situations of uncertainty, the management of the role of being `at risk' for particular diseases, and the ways in which individual and collective interests are balanced in a variety of health and welfare fields. Above all, we need to study what individuals, families and social institutions actually know, feel and do in relation to the `new genetics', rather than basing policy on assumptions about what they might know, feel or do.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

and Harris, J. , 1993, Wonderwoman and Superman—The Ethics of Human Biotechnology (Oxford University Press).

For a review of predictive screening, see Davison, C. , Macintyre, S. , and Davey Smith, G. , 1994, The potential social impact of predictive genetic testing for susceptibility to common chronic diseases: a review and proposed research agenda. Sociology of Health and Illness, 16, 340-371.

Nuffield Council on Bioethics , 1993, Genetic Screening; Ethical Issues (London: Nuffield Foundation).

and Richards, M. P. M. , 1995, Family, kinship and genetics. The Benefits and Hazards of the New Genetics, edited by T. Marteau and M. P. M. Richards (Cambridge University Press).

See Green, G. , 1994, The reproductive careers of a cohort of men and women following an HIV positive diagnosis. Journal of Biosocial Science, 26, 409-415.

Nuffield Council on Bioethics , 1993, Genetic Screening; Ethical Issues (London: Nuffield Foundation), p. 75.

Richards, M. P. M. , and Green, J. , 1993, Attitudes towards prenatal screening for fetal abnormality and detection of carriers of genetic disease: a discussion paper. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 11, 49-56.

Richards, M. P. M. , 1995, Family, kinship and genetics. The Benefits and Hazards of the New Genetics, edited by T. Marteau and M. P. M. Richards (Cambridge University Press).

Blaxter, M. , and Patterson, E. , 1982, Mothers and Daughters—a Three Generational Study of Health Attitudes and Behaviour (London: Heinemann Educational).

10.

Davison, C. , Davey Smith, G. , and Frankel, S. , 1991, Lay epidemiology and the prevention paradox; the implications of coronary candidacy for health education. Sociology of Health and Illness, 13, 1-19.

11.

This paragraph is a summary of the argument contained in Davison, C. , Macintyre, S. , and Davey Smith, G. , 1994, The potential social impact of predictive genetic testing for susceptibility to common chronic diseases: a review and proposed research agenda. Sociology of Health and Illness, 16, 340-371.

12.

Davison, C. , Frankel, S. , and Davey Smith, G. , 1989, Inheriting heart trouble—the relevance of common sense ideas to preventive measures. Health Education Research—Theory and Practice, 4, 339.

13.

Harper, P. , 1992, Genetics and public health. British Medical Journal, 304, 721.

14.

Mills, C. W. , 1959, The Sociological Imagination (London: Oxford University Press).