Tag: pharmacogenomics

Bioethics News

A New Edition of The Pharmacogenomics Journal Is Now Available

February 24, 2017

The Pharmacogenomics Journal (vol. 17, no. 1, 2017) is available online by subscription only.

Articles include:

  • “Are Patients Willing to Incur Out-of-Pocket Costs for Pharmacogenomic Testing?” by S J Bielinski et al.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Bioethics News

7 Things to Know About Pharmacogenomics

August 2, 2016

(U.S. News & World Report) – We all know a medication that works well for one person might not work for another – or even cause some people unwanted side effects. These differences in response can be caused by factors such as age, gender or other drugs and supplements that a person might be taking. However, up to 99 percent of us may have small variations in our genes that can also impact how we react to common medications, including pain relievers, antidepressants and blood thinners.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Bioethics News

The Heart Grows Stronger with Pharmacogenomics

June 23, 2016

(Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News) – Invariably, even medications that have widespread success and effectiveness will often display unpredictable levels of efficacy or adverse drug reactions (ADRs) at some point during clinical administration. Pharmacogenomics is one approach the scientific community uses to address genetic variants among the population related to unwanted and potentially life-threating drug effects. Scientists have attempted to couple drug development with new pharmacogenomic discoveries in an effort to improve current regimens or design new therapeutic strategies.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Bioethics Blogs

In the Journals, March 2015 – Part 2 by Anna Zogas

Here is a selection of journal articles published toward the end of March. Also check out this month’s first In the Journals post, and Science in Context’s special issue on mind and brain science in the twentieth century.

Disability Studies Quarterly (Open Access) 

Listen and Speak: Power-Knowledge-Truth and Cochlear Implants in Toronto
Tracey Edelist

Cochlear implants and auditory-verbal therapy are the latest techniques and technologies used to make deaf people learn to listen and speak. This paper provides a genealogical analysis of the Cochlear Implant Program at SickKids Hospital in Toronto, Ontario, Canada and shows how this program exemplifies the medicalization of deafness while denying deaf children the opportunity to learn sign language. Using Foucault’s concept of governmentality, the relations between power, knowledge, truth and their influences on the program’s practices are revealed in order to provide insight into Canadian society’s conceptions of deafness. This analysis reveals the Cochlear Implant Program as a capitalist establishment that is supported by unquestioned reverence of modern medicine and technology, oriented by a quest for normalcy. The paper concludes by encouraging members of the Deaf community and their supporters to challenge the hegemony of normalcy by utilizing alternate research-based knowledge-truths of cochlear implants and sign language.

“Crying Doesn’t Work”: Emotion and Parental Involvement of Working Class Mothers Raising Children with Developmental Disabilities
Amy Christine Sousa

This article presents three critical case studies that explore the relationship between income and parental involvement in the education of children with developmental disabilities. Interviewed as part of a larger study on mothering children with developmental disabilities, Joy, Jackie, and Maya are low income mothers of children with severe developmental disabilities living in New Hampshire.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Bioethics Blogs

Applying Comparative Effectiveness Research To Individuals: Problems And Approaches

A Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER) study shows that surgery is better than medical treatment for a particular cardiac condition. My patient is 78 years old and has complicated diabetes. – does the study apply? Another patient 48 years old and otherwise healthy. Does it apply here?

Can the overall results of a CER study be applied to all patients in the target population? Are there substantial, undetected variations among patients in the results of CER? What is the extent of exceptions? These are important policy questions in applying results of CER to day-to-day decisions, clinical guidelines, performance measures and other facets of the modern healthcare system.

The “gold standard” approach to CER is the randomized (RCT), a scientific comparison of two or more clinical strategies, with the downsides that it is generally conducted in a special environment and usually has a rather narrow (and possibly unrepresentative) population spectrum. Two variants, the Practical (or Pragmatic) Clinical Trial (PCT) and the Large Simple Trial (LST) are inclusive of a wider spectrum of patients and more diverse clinical settings.

These approaches provide “average” results and for the most part it is thought that averages do apply to a large segment of the population at large for which they are intended. However, there are clearly differences in effect (heterogeneities of treatment effect – HTE’s) that manifest among CER study subjects and presumably to a greater extent in the intended population outside the study. Two approaches may be equivalent on the average but one may be better in a particular group, and differences may be less apparent when the study’s population base is narrow.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.