Understanding the new human genetics: A review of scientific editorials [An article from: Social Science & Medicine]

This digital document is a journal article from Social Science & Medicine, published by Elsevier in 2006. The article is delivered in HTML format and is available in your Amazon.com Media Library immediately after purchase. You can view it with any web browser.

Description:
Developments in genetics are expected to have a profound impact on health and health care, yet much remains to be learned about how leaders of the research and clinical communities view and frame these expectations. We conducted a comprehensive review of editorials about developments in genetic medicine published in scientific journals, to understand what this elite group of commentators anticipate. Editorials are an important resource for understanding how the new genetics is understood and portrayed. They allow leaders of the research and clinical communities to communicate to each other and informed publics, and are a forum for the expression of widely shared elite beliefs and opinions. We analyzed selected editorials for content and metaphoric language to explore attitudes and expectations concerning developments in genetic science and technology. Our analysis suggests that a diverse group of leaders of the research and clinical communities are remarkably uniform in their discourse about the future of genetic medicine. Editorialists have great expectations for developments in basic science and in the comprehension and management of disease. They also anticipate important effects on health care, notably the health care professions, and on wider society. Yet editorialists do not discuss these prospects in a consistently positive or optimistic manner, and they utilize metaphoric imagery that emphasizes the inexorable nature of progress, and the sometimes ominous manner in which developments emerge. The dominant discourse of editorialists claims authority for clinicians and researchers and asserts a broad sphere of expertise, but it also positions these leaders as handmaidens of a science they do not control, and insists that their ultimate contribution is to prepare themselves and others for the inexorable march of progress.