Suchergebnisse

ObjectivesIn this article, we seek to better understand how a genomic vision of addiction may influence drug prevention and treatment. Thoughsocialinfluences on substance use and abuse (e.g., peer and family influence, socioeconomic status) are well documented, biomedical intervention is becoming increasingly technoscientific in nature. We wish to elucidate how emphasizing biological influences on substance use may lead to a vision of addiction as a phenomenon isolated within our bodies and neurochemistry, not lived daily within a complex social web of relationships and a particular political economy, including the tobacco industry, which aggressively markets products known to cause harm.MethodsWe explore the emerging view of addiction as a "disease of the brain" in open‐ended interviews with 86 stakeholders from the fields of nicotine research and tobacco control. Interview data were analyzed using standard qualitative techniques.ResultsMost stakeholders hold a medicalized view of addiction. Though environmental variables are understood to be a primary cause of smoking initiation, the speed and strength with which addiction occurs is understood to be a largely biological process. Though stakeholders believe that an increased focus on addiction as a disease of the brain is not likely to lead to widespread unrealistic expectations for cessation therapies, they remain concerned that it may reinforce teenagers' expectations that quitting is not difficult. Finally, stakeholder responses indicate that genetic and neuroscientific research is unlikely to increase or decrease stigmatization, but will be used by interest groups to buttress their existing views of the stigma associated with smoking.ConclusionWe argue that the main potential harms of focusing on biological etiology stem from a concept of addiction that is disassociated from social context. Focusing on genetic testing and brain scans may lead one to overemphasize pharmaceutical "magic bullet cures" and underemphasize, and underfund, more traditional therapies and public health prevention strategies that have proven to be effective. Genetic research on addiction may fundamentally change our conception of deviance and our identities, and may thus transform our susceptibility to substance use into something isolated in our biology, not embedded in a biosocial context.

To understand public discourse in the United States on genetic causation of behavioral disorders, we analyzed media representations of genetic research on addiction published between 1990 and 2010. We conclude first that the media simplistically represent biological bases of addiction and willpower as being mutually exclusive: behaviors are either genetically determined, or they are a choice. Second, most articles provide only cursory or no treatment of the environmental contribution. A media focus on genetics directs attention away from environmental factors. Rhetorically, media neglect the complexity underlying the etiology the addiction and direct focus back toward individual causation and responsibility.

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cross-sectional survey. OBJECTIVE: To determine the perspectives of parents of patients undergoing posterior instrumented fusion for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) regarding simultaneous surgery and trainee participation. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Simultaneous ("at the same time") surgery is under scrutiny by the public, government, payers, and the medical community. The objective of this study is to determine the perspectives of parents of patients undergoing posterior instrumented fusion for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Our goal is to inform the national conversation on this subject with real patient and family voices. METHODS: A survey was prospectively administered to 31 consecutive parents of patients undergoing posterior instrumented fusion for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis at a large academic medical center. "Overlapping" was defined as simultaneity during "noncritical" parts of an operation. "Concurrent" was defined as simultaneity that includes "critical" part(s) of an operation. Participants were asked to provide levels of agreement with overlapping and concurrent surgery and anesthesia, as well as with trainee involvement. RESULTS: On average, respondents "strongly agree" with the need to be informed about overlapping or concurrent surgery. They "disagree" with both overlapping and concurrent scheduling, and "disagree" with trainees operating without direct supervision, even for "noncritical" parts. Informing parents about the presence of a back-up surgeon or research demonstrating safety of simultaneous surgery did not make them agreeable to simultaneous scheduling. CONCLUSION: Parents have a strong desire to be informed of simultaneous spinal surgery and anesthesia as part of consent on behalf of their children. Their disagreement with simultaneous surgery, as well as with trainees operating without direct supervision, suggests discordance with current guidelines and practice and should inform the national conversation moving forward.

Genetic research generates results with implications for relatives. Recommendations addressing relatives' access to a participant's genetic research findings include eliciting participant preferences about access and choosing a representative to make decisions about access upon participant incapacity/death. Representatives are likely to be blood relatives or spouse/partners (who may share genetically related children). This raises the question of whether relatives hold similar attitudes about access or divergent attitudes that may yield conflict. We surveyed pancreatic cancer biobank participants (probands) and relatives in a family registry (blood relatives and spouse/partners of probands); 1,903 (>55%) surveys were returned. Results revealed few attitudinal differences between the groups. A slightly higher proportion of blood relatives agreed with statements reflecting proband privacy. In conclusion, probands' decisions on access are likely to be accepted by relatives; in choosing a representative, probands may not face major differences in attitudes about privacy/sharing between a blood relative and a spouse/partner.

ABSTRACTThe expansion of both formal and informal frameworks of "engaged" research in translational research settings raises emerging and substantial normative concerns. In this article, we draw on findings from a focus group study with members of a national consortium of translational genomic research sites. The goals were to catalog informal participant engagement practices, to explore the perceived roots of these practices and the motivations of research staff members for adopting them, and to reflect on their ethical implications. We learned that participant engagement is a deliberate strategy by research staff members both to achieve instrumental research goals and to "do research differently" in response to past research injustices. While many of the participant engagement practices used in translational genomic research are not new, important insights can be gained through a closer examination of the specific contours of participant engagement in this context. These practices appear to have been shaped by the professional training of genetic counselors and by the interests and needs of participants who enroll in clinical genomics studies. The contours of this contemporary application of engaged research principles have relevance not only to clinical genomics research but also to translational research broadly, particularly for how communities of clinical researchers are interpreting the principle of respect for persons. Our findings invite normative questions about the governance of these practices and sociological questions about whether and how clinical researchers in other professions are also engaging participants in translational research settings.

The capacity of next-generation closed-loop or adaptive deep brain stimulation devices (aDBS) to read (measure neural activity) and write (stimulate brain regions or circuits) shows great potential to effectively manage movement, seizure, and psychiatric disorders, and also raises the possibility of using aDBS to electively (non-therapeutically) modulate mood, cognition, and prosociality. What separates aDBS from most neurotechnologies (e.g. transcranial stimulation) currently used for enhancement is that aDBS remains an invasive, surgically-implanted technology with a risk-benefit ratio significantly different when applied to diseased versus non-diseased individuals. Despite a large discourse about the ethics of enhancement, no empirical studies yet examine perspectives on enhancement from within the aDBS research community. We interviewed 23 aDBS researchers about their attitudes toward expanding aDBS use for enhancement. A thematic content analysis revealed that researchers share ethical concerns related to (1) safety and security; (2) enhancement as unnecessary, unnatural or aberrant; and (3) fairness, equality, and distributive justice. Most (70%) researchers felt that enhancement applications for DBS will eventually be technically feasible and that attempts to develop such applications for DBS are already happening (particularly for military purposes). However, researchers unanimously (100%) felt that DBS ideally should not be considered for enhancement until researchers better understand brain target localization and functioning. While many researchers acknowledged controversies highlighted by scholars and ethicists, such as potential impacts on personhood, authenticity, autonomy and privacy, their ethical concerns reflect considerations of both gravity and perceived near-term likelihood.