Recent developments in molecular biology open up the possibility of being able to provide more precise genetic information to individuals. It is therefore important to examine lay understandings of the mechanisms of inheritance. Most studies to date have focused on the beliefs of families with single gene disorders. We explored lay understandings among respondents from “ordinary” families by conducting semi-structured interviews with 61 men and women subsampled from a large community-based study. Respondents found it easy to talk about inheritance within their own family context, given that discussions about inheritance from part of family culture. They constructed family narratives using artifacts such as family photographs, and they used phrases such as “double” and “spitting image” to emphasize likeness between relatives and to reinforce continuity across generations. However, respondents were more uncertain when asked to talk in more abstract terms about the mechanisms that underlie inheritance. There was some evidence to support the hypothesis that women are the `kinkeepers' of the family. As scientific understandings of the “new genetics” proliferate, it is important to recognize that they do not simply fill a vacuum, but must fit into pre-existing social relationships and contexts.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
D. Nelkin , “Promotional metaphors and their popular appeal,”Public Understanding of Science3 (1994): 25-31.
Human Genetics Commission , Whose Hands on Your Genes? A discussion document on the storage protection and use of personal genetic information (London: Human Genetics Commission, 2000).
4.
T. Richards , “Three views of genetics: the enthusiast, the visionary, and the sceptic,”British Medical Journal322 (2001): 1016-1017.
5.
K. Hunt , C. Emslie, and G. Watt, “Lay constructions of a `family history' of heart disease: potential for misunderstandings in the clinical encounter?”The Lancet357 (2001): 1168-1171.
6.
E. Parsons and P. Atkinson, “Lay constructions of genetic risk,”Sociology of Health and Illness14, no. 4 (1992): 437-455.
7.
C. Davison , “Everyday ideas of inheritance and health in Britain: implications for predictive genetic testing,” in Culture, Kinship and Genes. Towards Cross-cultural Genetics, eds. A. Clarke and E. Parsons (Basingstoke and London: Macmillan Press, 1997), 167-174.
8.
Davisonet al. , “Inheriting heart trouble,” p. 336.
9.
Richards and Ponder, “Lay understanding of genetics.”
10.
Richards , “Lay and professional knowledge of genetics and inheritance,” p. 222.
11.
M. Stacey , “The new genetics: a feminist view,” in The Troubled Helix: Social and Psychological Implications of the New Human Genetics, eds. T. Marteau and M. Richards (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 331-349.
12.
S.D. Lane and D.A. Cibula, “Gender and helath,” in Handbook of Social Studies in Health and Medicine, eds. G.L. Albrecht, R. Fitzpatrick, and S.C. Scrimshaw (London: Sage, 2000), 136-153.
13.
C. Grey , “Theories of relativity,” in Family Snaps. The Meanings of Domestic Photography, eds. J. Spence and P. Holland (London: Virago Press, 1991), 106-116.
14.
Richards , “Families, kinship, and genetics,” p. 258.
15.
M.B. Mahowald , D. Levinson, C. Casselet al., “The new genetics and women,”The Milbank Quarterly74, no. 2 (1996): 239-283.
16.
M. Upton , A. McConnachie, C. McSharryet al., “Intergenerational 20 year trends in the prevalence of asthma and hay fever in adults: the Midspan family study surveys of parents and offspring,”British Medical Journal321 (2000): 88-92.
17.
V.M. Hawthorne , G. Watt, C. Hart, D. Hole, and C. Gillis, “Cardiorespiratory disease in men and women in urban Scotland: baseline characteristics of the Renfrew/Paisley (MIDSPAN) Study population,”Scottish Medical Journal40 (1995): 102-107.
18.
N. Mays and C. Pope, “Rigour and qualitative research,”British Medical Journal311 (1995): 109-112.
19.
Huntet al. , “Lay construction of a family history of heart disease.”
20.
Ponderet al. , “Family history and perceived vulnerability to some common diseases.”
21.
N. Britten , R. Jones, E. Murphy, and R. Stacy, “Qualitative research methods in general practice and primary care,”Family Practice12, no. 1 (1995): 104-114.
22.
H. Richards and C. Emslie, “The `doctor' or the `girl from the University'? considering the influence of professional roles on qualitative interviewing,”Family Practice17, no. 1 (2000): 71-75.
23.
A.L. Strauss , Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987).
24.
Huntet al. , “Lay constructions of a `family history' of heart disease.”
25.
Huntet al. , “Barriers rooted in biography.”
26.
Richards , “Families, kinship, and genetics.”
27.
Davisonet al. , “The limits of lifestyle.”
28.
M. Barrett , Women's Oppression Today. Problems in Marxist Feminist Analysis (London: Verso, 1986).
29.
Ibid. p. 203.
30.
Richardset al. , “Families, kinship, and genetics.”
31.
Hunt , “Lay construction of a `family history' of heart disease.”
32.
A. Kuhn , “Remembrance,” in Family Snaps. The Meanings of Domestic Photography, eds. J. Spence and P. Holland (London: Virago Press, 1991), 17-25.
33.
E.S. Krusiewicz and J.T. Wood, ` “He was our child from the moment we walked in that room': entrance stories of adoptive parents,”Journal of Social and Personal Relationships18, no. 6 (2001): 785-803.
34.
Ibid.
35.
For example, “C'est son pere tout crache” (he is his father completely spat) and “Una copia spiccicata di sua madre” (she is a pasted copy of her mother).
36.
T. Walter , “Reincarnation, modernity and identity,”Sociology35, no. 1 (2001): 21-38.
37.
Richards , “Families, kinship, and genetics.”
38.
S. Jones , In the Blood. God, Genes and Destiny (London: Flamingo, 1996), p. 83.
39.
Davisonet al. , “Inheriting heart trouble.”
40.
T.M. Marteau , A-L Kinmonth, S. Pyke, and S.G. Thompson, and F.H.S. Group, “Readiness for lifestyle advice: self-assessments of coronary risk prior to screening in the British family heart study,”British Journal of General Practice45 (1995): 5-8.
41.
Richards , “Families, kinship, and genetics.”
42.
S. Michie , V. McDonald, and T. Marteau, “Understanding responses to predictive genetic testing: a grounded theory approach,”Psychology and Health11 (1994): 455-470.
43.
Ponderet al. , “Family history and perceived vulnerability to some common diseases.”
44.
J. Green , F. Murton, and H. Statham, “Psychosocial issues raised by a familial ovarian cancer register,”Journal of Medical Genetics30 (1993): 575-579.
45.
Kerret al. , “The new genetics and health.”
46.
R. Olby , Origins of Mendelism (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1985).
47.
Jones , In the Blood.
48.
E. Fox Keller , The Century of the Gene (Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press, 2000).
49.
Richards , “Lay and professional knowledge of genetics and inheritance.”
50.
Da Rosa and Solomon, “When science and the public meet”, p. 279.
