This article reports concerns among disability community members that the implications of genetic research will be driven by mistaken beliefs about genetics and negative attitudes toward disability as identified in a qualitative study funded by the National Human Genome Research Institute. In addition to reporting the nature and the context of disability community concerns related to perceptions of disability and of human genetics, the authors discuss the historic role of attitudes toward disability and science in popularizing eugenics in early 20th century America as evidence of the seriousness of these concerns.
AdamsM. (Ed.). (1990). The Wellborn Science: Eugenics in Germany, France, Brazil, and Russia. New York: Oxford University Press.
2.
AllportG. (1954). The nature of prejudice. New York: Addison Wesley.
3.
Americans With Disabilities Act, Pub. L. No. 101–336, U.S. Code Title 42 (1990). The Public Health and Welfare, Chapter 126. Equal Opportunity For Individuals With Disabilities.
4.
AndrewsL. (1995). Prenatal screening and the culture of motherhood. Hastings Law Journal, 47, 967–1006.
5.
AndrewsL. (2001). Future perfect: Confronting decisions about genetics. New York: Columbia University Press.
6.
BeckwithJ. (2002). Making genes, making waves. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
7.
BlackE. (2003). War against the weak: Eugenics and America's campaign to create a master race. New York: Four Walls Eight Windows.
8.
BraddockD.ParishS. (2001). An institutional history of disability. In AlbrechtG. L.SeelmanK. D.BuryM. (Eds.), Handbook of disability studies (pp. 11–68). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
9.
BrobergG.Roll-HansenN. (Eds.). (2005). Eugenics and the welfare state: Sterilization policy in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Finland. Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press.
10.
BrungerJ.MurrayG.O'RiordanM.MatthewsA.SmithR.RobinN. (2000). Parental attitudes toward genetic testing for pediatric deafness. American Journal of Human Genetics, 67, 1621–1625.
11.
BryantL.HewisonJ.GreenJ. (2005). Attitudes towards prenatal diagnosis and termination in women who have a sibling with Down's syndrome. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 23, 181–198.
12.
Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927).
13.
CarlsonE. (2001). The unfit: A history of a bad idea. Cold Springs Harbor, NY: Cold Springs Harbor Laboratory Press.
14.
ChapmanE. (2002). The social and ethical implications of changing medical technologies: The views of people living with genetic conditions. Journal of Health Psychology, 7, 195–206.
ErlandsonD. A.HarrisE. L.SkipperB. L.AllenS. D. (1993). Doing naturalistic inquiry: A guide to methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
18.
FreeseJ. (2006). Commentary: The analysis of variance and the social complexities of genetic causation. International Journal of Epidemiology, 35, 536–537.
19.
GerstenR.BakerS. (2000). The professional knowledge base on instructional strategies that support cognitive growth for English-language learners. In GerstenR.ShillerE. P.VaughnS. (Eds.), Contemporary special education research: Synthesis of the knowledge base on critical instructional issues (pp. 31–79). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
20.
GollustS.ThompsonR.GoodingH.BeiseckerB. (2003). Living with achondroplasia: Attitudes toward population screening and correlation with quality of life. Prenatal Diagnosis, 23, 1003–1008.
21.
HahnH.BeltT. (2004). Disability identity and attitudes toward cure in a sample of disabled activists. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 45, 453–464.
22.
HasianM. (1996). The rhetoric of eugenics in Anglo-American thought. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.
23.
HennemanL.BramsenI.Van OsA.ReulingI.HeyermanH.Van der LaagJ. (2001). Attitudes towards reproductive issues and carrier testing among adult patient and parents of children with cystic fibrosis (CF). Prenatal Diagnosis, 21, 1–9.
24.
HoedemaekersR. (2001). Geneticization. In ChadwickR. (Ed.), The concise encyclopedia of the ethics of new technology (pp. 157–164). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
KliewerC.DrakeS. (1998). Disability, eugenics and the current ideology of segregation: A modern moral tale. Disability and Society, 13, 95–111.
31.
KramerR.JarveR.YaronY.JohnsonM.LampinenJ.KasperskiS. (1998). Determinants of parental decisions after the prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 79, 172–174.
32.
KruegerR. A. (1994). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
33.
KruegerR. A.CaseyM. A. (2000). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
34.
KrugmanS. (1986). The Willowbrook hepatitis studies revisited: Ethical aspects. Reviews of Infectious Diseases, 8, 157–162.
35.
LakinK. C. (1979). Demographic studies of residential facilities for mentally retarded people: A historical review of methodologies and findings (p. 8). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Center for Residential and Community Services.
36.
LaphamE. V.KozmaC.WeissJ. O. (1996). Genetic discrimination: Perspectives of consumers. Science, 274, 621–624.
37.
LincolnY.GubaE. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
MarinG.MarinB. (1991). Research with Hispanic populations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
40.
MarteauT.DrakeH. (1995). Attributions for disability: The influence of genetic screening. Social Science & Medicine, 40, 1127–1132.
41.
MashourG. A.WalkerE. E.MartuzaR. L. (2005). Psychosurgery: Past, present, and future. Brain Research Review, 48, 409–419.
42.
McGeeG.MagnusD. (2000). Eugenics, ethics. In MurryT.MehlmanM. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of ethical, legal, and policy issues in biotechnology (pp. 199–204). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
43.
MetlayD. (1999). Institutional trust and confidence: A journey into a conceptual quagmire. In CvetkovichG. T.LofstedtR. E. (Eds.), Social trust and the management of risk (pp. 100–116). London: Earthscan.
44.
MiddletonA.HewisonJ.MuellerR. (2001). Prenatal diagnosis for inherited deafness—What is the potential demand?Journal of Genetic Counseling, 10, 121–131.
45.
MiddletonC.BiegertM. (2005). Planning for the age of genetics: A Denver-based system makes ethical, theoretical, and practical decisions about genetic medicine. Health Progress, 86, 35–40.
OgawaR. T.MalenB. (1991). Towards rigor in reviews of multivocal literatures: Applying the exploratory case study method. Review of Educational Research, 61, 265–286.
48.
ParensE.AschA. (1999). The disability rights critique of prenatal genetic testing. Hastings Center Report, 29, S1–S22.
49.
ParensE.AschA. (2003). Disability rights critique of prenatal genetic testing: Reflections and recommendations. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 9, 40–47.
50.
PattonM. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
51.
PernickM. S. (1996). The Black Stork: Eugenics and the death of “defective” babies in American medicine and motion pictures since 1915. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
52.
PetersK.KongF.HansloM.BieseckerB. (2002). Living with Marfan syndrome III: Quality of life and reproductive planning. Clinical Genetics, 62, 110–120.
53.
PetersonA. (2006). The best experts: The narratives of those who have a genetic condition. Social Science & Medicine, 63, 32–42.
54.
PickensD. (1968). Eugenics and the progressives. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.
RosenC. (2004). Preaching eugenics. New York: Oxford University Press.
57.
RubinH. J.RubinI. S. (1995). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. Newbury, CA: Sage.
58.
SeldenS. (2000). Eugenics popularization. Image Archive on the American Eugenics Movement. Dolan DNA Learning Center, Cold Springs Harbor. Retrieved September 2006 from http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/eugenics/list3.pl.
59.
SensenbrennerC. (2004). Testimony on prenatal genetic testing technology. Washington, DC: U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation Subcommittee on Science.
60.
SingerE.CorningA.LamiasM. (1998). The polls-trends: Genetic testing, engineering, and therapy awareness and attitudes. Public Opinion Quarterly, 62, 633–664.
61.
SjobergL. (2004). Principles of risk perception applied to gene technology [Special issue]. EMBO Reports, 5, S47–S51.
62.
SkinnerD.SparkmanK.BaileyD. (2003). Screening for Fragile X syndrome: Parent attitudes and perspectives. Genetics in Medicine, 5, 378–384.
63.
StewartD. W.ShamdasaniP. N. (1990). Focus groups: Theory and practice. Newbury Park: Sage.
64.
StoweM.TurnbullR.SchrandtM.RackJ. (2007). Looking to the future: Intellectual and developmental disabilities in the genetics era. Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 3, 1–64.
65.
WertzD. C. (1999). Patients' and professionals' views on autonomy, disability, and “discrimination”: Results of a 36-nation survey. In Williams-JonesB.CaulfieldT. (Eds.), The commercialization of genetic research. New York: Plenum.
WilsonJ. (2002). (Re)writing the genetic body-text: Disability, textuality, and the Human Genome Project. Cultural Critique, 50, 23–39.
68.
WoodP. (2000). Meta-analysis. In BreakwellG. M.HammondS.FifeschawC. (Eds.), Research methods in psychology (2nd ed., pp. 414–425). London: Sage.
69.
YinR. (1991). Advancing rigorous methodologies: A review of “Towards rigor in reviews of multivocal literatures….”Review of Educational Research, 61, 299–305.
