Tag: population groups

Bioethics Blogs

Memo To White Nationalists From A Geneticist: Why White Purity Is A Terrible Idea

On
August 14th, UCLA researchers Aaron Panofsky and Joan Donovan presented
findings of their study,  “When Genetics Challenges a Racist’s Identity: Genetic
Ancestry Testing among White Nationalists,”
 at a sociology
conference in Montreal. They’d analyzed 3,070 comments organized into 70
threads publicly posted to the (sometimes difficult to access) “social movement
online community”  Stormfront.

Former
KKK Grand Wizard Don Black launched Stormfront on March 27, 1995. Posts exceed
12 million, ramping up since the 2016 election season. Panofsky and Donovan’s
report has a lot of sociology speak, such as “scholars of whiteness” and
“affiliative self-fashioning,” amid some quite alarming posts – yet also
reveals a sophisticated understanding of genetics from some contributors.

A
WHITE NATIONALIST ONLINE MEET-UP: STORMFRONT

“We are the voice of the new, embattled White minority!”proclaims the
bold, blood-tinged-hued message on the opening page of Stormfront, the “community
of racial realists and idealists.”
 It’s a site for white nationalists,
who are a little less extreme than white supremacists, who want to dominate the
world from their pinnacle of a perceived racial hierarchy. The Stormfronters
seem more concerned with establishing their white purity – defined as “non-Jewish
people of wholly European descent.”

Yet
the lines between white nationalist and supremacist blur, as Stormfront states, “If Blacks or
Mexicans become a majority, then they will not be able to maintain the White
man’s social, cultural and economic systems because they do not have to (sic)
minds needed to do so.”

The
idea of white rights is rather new, catalyzed by the revolts of the truly
marginalized, murdered, abused, ignored, and enslaved.

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

Memo To White Nationalists From A Geneticist: Why White Purity Is A Terrible Idea

On
August 14th, UCLA researchers Aaron Panofsky and Joan Donovan presented
findings of their study,  “When Genetics Challenges a Racist’s Identity: Genetic
Ancestry Testing among White Nationalists,”
 at a sociology
conference in Montreal. They’d analyzed 3,070 comments organized into 70
threads publicly posted to the (sometimes difficult to access) “social movement
online community”  Stormfront.

Former
KKK Grand Wizard Don Black launched Stormfront on March 27, 1995. Posts exceed
12 million, ramping up since the 2016 election season. Panofsky and Donovan’s
report has a lot of sociology speak, such as “scholars of whiteness” and
“affiliative self-fashioning,” amid some quite alarming posts – yet also
reveals a sophisticated understanding of genetics from some contributors.

A
WHITE NATIONALIST ONLINE MEET-UP: STORMFRONT

“We are the voice of the new, embattled White minority!”proclaims the
bold, blood-tinged-hued message on the opening page of Stormfront, the “community
of racial realists and idealists.”
 It’s a site for white nationalists,
who are a little less extreme than white supremacists, who want to dominate the
world from their pinnacle of a perceived racial hierarchy. The Stormfronters
seem more concerned with establishing their white purity – defined as “non-Jewish
people of wholly European descent.”

Yet
the lines between white nationalist and supremacist blur, as Stormfront states, “If Blacks or
Mexicans become a majority, then they will not be able to maintain the White
man’s social, cultural and economic systems because they do not have to (sic)
minds needed to do so.”

The
idea of white rights is rather new, catalyzed by the revolts of the truly
marginalized, murdered, abused, ignored, and enslaved.

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 – December 2016, Part II by Anna Zogas

Here is the second part of our article roundup for December (find the first set of articles here). Happy reading, and happy new year!

New Genetics and Society

Redrawing the boundary of medical expertise: medically assisted reproduction and the debate on Italian bioconstitutionalism
Volha Parfenchyk

In 2004, the Italian Parliament passed a controversial law on medically assisted reproduction (Law 40/2004). The Law obliged clinicians to create a maximum of three embryos during one in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycle and transfer them simultaneously into the patient’s uterus. With this “three embryo” standard, the Parliament sought to secure the realization of rights of IVF embryos. Drawing on the concepts of boundary-work and bioconstitutionalism, this article explores the role that the constitutional obligations of the Italian State towards its citizens, including IVF embryos as its new “citizen subjects,” played in how it envisaged and demarcated the professional boundaries of medical expertise. It argues that the latter depended upon how it balanced its commitments to protect the rights of IVF embryos and those of adult citizens. As such, the demarcation of the jurisdictional boundaries of medical expertise, and the definition of constitutional rights, formed two sides of the same governing project.

Traveling questions: uncertainty and nonknowledge as vehicles of translation in genetic research participation
Klaus Hoeyer

In this paper, I argue that uncertainty and nonknowledge, and not just research results, can be important vehicles of translation through which genetic research participation comes to affect the lives of research participants. Based on interviews with participants in a genetic research project, I outline epistemic, emotional, relational and moral implications of research participation.

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

Solving the Lack of Diversity in Genomic Research

October 27, 2016

(MIT Technology Review) – A recent analysis published in the journal Nature revealed that 81 percent of participants in these genome-wide association studies were of European descent. Together, individuals of African, Latin American, and native or indigenous ancestry represent less than 4 percent of all genomic samples analyzed. While the overall diversity in genome-wide association studies has increased since 2009, when 96 percent of data was from people of European descent, much of the rise in diversity is due to large gains in Asian data and only marginal increases from other population groups.

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

Precision Medicine: Who Benefits from Aspirin to Prevent Colorectal Cancer?

In recent years, scientific evidence has begun to accumulate that indicates taking aspirin or other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) on a daily basis may lower the risk of developing colorectal cancer. Now, a new study provides more precise information on who might benefit from this particular prevention strategy, as well as who might not.

Published in the journal JAMA, the latest work shows that, for the majority of people studied, regular use of aspirin or NSAIDs was associated with about a one-third lower risk of developing colorectal cancer. But the international research team, partly funded by NIH, also found that not all regular users of aspirin/NSAIDs reaped such benefits—about 9 percent experienced no reduction in colorectal cancer risk and 4 percent actually appeared to have an increased risk [1]. Was this just coincidence, or might there be a biological explanation?

By mining mountains of data generated by 10 “cohort” studies that followed large groups of people over long periods of time, the international research team, partly funded by NIH, took aim at a dilemma that confronts many people who take aspirin on a daily basis. While aspirin is often used to relieve pain and to lower risk of heart attack or stroke, it can cause potentially serious bleeding in the stomach, small intestine, or even the brain. So, it would be great to have more precise ways to predict whether the benefits of aspirin are likely to outweigh the risks in an individual patient.

In their meta-analysis involving more than 17,000 people—half of whom had invasive colorectal cancer and half of whom did not—the international research team, led by Andrew Chan of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston and Ulrike Peters and Li Hsu of Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle, identified some relatively uncommon genetic variants that appear to be associated with development of colorectal cancer despite daily use of aspirin or NSAIDs.

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

Assisted Procreation in Quebec: What To Expect?

Marie-France Bureau raises concerns about access to, and funding and regulation of assisted reproductive treatments.

__________________________________________

Quebec Health Minister Gaétan Barrette is expected to introduce new legislation on in vitro fertilization. The costs of the existing program, established in 2010, have skyrocketed to about $70 million annually. Although allocating public funds to reproductive treatments is hard to justify given the burden of health spending in the overall government budget, rumours indicate that Quebec will keep funding some treatments. The bill is expected to limit coverage to medical infertility through a tax credit mechanism.

Provinces are not obligated to implement any fertility program, but once a province has decided to offer a service, it has to offer it in a way that does not discriminate illegally between groups of people. It is unsure whether limiting coverage to “medical infertility” would pass the constitutional test, given the controversial meaning of infertility in our democratic and egalitarian society. Would gay, lesbian and single persons automatically be excluded? Would two fertile persons unable to sexually conceive a child together be excluded, be they in a heterosexual couple? Such questions show that it will be hard to draw lines between medical, social or biological definitions of infertility.

IVF Impact Ethics

Setting up limits to access in order to contain costs is a legitimate objective, but it should not serve as an excuse to exclude people on the basis of stereotypes and prejudice. If Quebec chooses to cover infertility, it should implement limits that are rationally linked to the objectives of the program (helping Quebecers make babies) and that cut across all population groups.

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.