Suchergebnisse

Intro -- Preface -- References -- Acknowledgments -- Contents -- List of Images -- 1 Introduction: Turning Populations into Assets -- The State, Branding, and Data -- Branding Populations, Branding Science -- State Competitiveness and Innovation Policies -- Commodifying the Body -- Commercial Data Markets Meet State Data Markets -- Materials -- Structure of the Book -- References -- 2 Marketing Populations for Biomedical Research -- Contextualizing Population Branding -- The Nordic Gold Mine -- International Gateway to Danish Healthcare and Life Science -- "Finland-Your Testbed for the Next Generation Research & -- Medical Innovation" -- "When an Entire Country Is a Cohort" -- The World's Most Important Bank -- One-Stop Shop Gateways and Legislation -- The Welfare State Reimagined -- References -- 3 Population Branding as Practices of Valuation -- Branding National Genomic Futures -- Generating Value from Population Brands -- The Danish Model-Nordic Exceptionalism -- FinnGen-An Expedition to the Frontiers of Genomics and Medicine -- Valuing Samples and Health Data -- References -- 4 Constructing Authenticity into Population Brands -- Brands and Populations -- From Samples to Heritage -- Populations, Branding, and Mapping Genes -- The Danish Reference Genome -- Rare Diseases, Population History, and the Making of a Population Brand -- The Productive Population -- References -- 5 When the Brand Bites Back -- The Problematic Public -- Engaging the Finnish Population -- Something is Rotten in the State of Denmark -- Populations with Concerns -- Translating Engagement into Practice -- References -- 6 Conclusion -- References -- Index.

The sharing, circulation, distribution, and use of human tissue samples and related data have become a major political and scientific pre-occupation during the past two decades. In the age of big data, the political, scientific, and economic momentum around the need to increasingly collect and collate massive amounts of data has intensified. At the same time, the control and sharing of samples and data have become increasingly strategic in positioning biobanks within the global biomedical research market. Numerous commentators have identified several reasons why and with whom biobanks choose to share. Despite intensified efforts to encourage sharing within networks, there are still actors who have not embraced the values of sharing. The term 'data hugging' is introduced as a form of data work through which value is generated but sharing as a practice is not exercised according to community expectations. Data hugging is a term used within the biobanking community to describe the practice of withholding samples or data from other network members. While some biobankers consider data hugging to be an impediment to efficient and responsible science, it can also be another way of generating value in an otherwise challenging value creation environment. European biobanking policies, as well as the biobanking community, need a better understanding of these value-generating practices in relation to the life cycle of the biobank. ; Peer reviewed

Despite recent evidence that suggests that knowledge production within the medical community is increasingly based on knowledge-making coalitions or what some have called the co-production of knowledge, there remains a strong expert led policy agenda in many countries in relation to human genome research. This article reports on the role of experts in defining the scope of discussion in relation to the biomedical use of human tissue sample collections or biobanks in Finland using the case of the Genome Information Center. It is argued that the rhetorical strategies should not be understood simply as subversive tactics, but rather as ways of engaging the public within particular contexts of creating commercial expectations and visions which are easier to negotiate from a policy perspective.

Since the sequencing of the human genome, as well as the completion of the first Human Genome Diversity Project, the benefits of studying one human population over another has been an ongoing debate relating to the replicability of findings in other populations. The leveraging of specific populations into research markets has made headlines in cases such as deCode in Iceland, Quebec Founder Population, and Generation Scotland. In such cases, researchers and policy makers have used the genetic and historical uniqueness of their populations to attract scientific, commercial and political interest. In this article, we explore how in countries with population isolates, such as Finland, the researchers balance considerations relating to the generalization and replicability of findings in small yet unique research populations to global biomedical research interests. This highlights challenges related to forms of competition associated with genetics research markets, as well as what counts as the 'right' population for genetic research.

Since the sequencing of the human genome, as well as the completion of the first Human Genome Diversity Project, the benefits of studying one human population over another has been an ongoing debate relating to the replicability of findings in other populations. The leveraging of specific populations into research markets has made headlines in cases such as deCode in Iceland, Quebec Founder Population, and Generation Scotland. In such cases, researchers and policy makers have used the genetic and historical uniqueness of their populations to attract scientific, commercial and political interest. In this article, we explore how in countries with population isolates, such as Finland, the researchers balance considerations relating to the generalization and replicability of findings in small yet unique research populations to global biomedical research interests. This highlights challenges related to forms of competition associated with genetics research markets, as well as what counts as the right' population for genetic research. ; Peer reviewed

AbstractThe idea of genetic authenticity and origin has been an important issue within genetics for decades for scientific, political, and economic reasons. The question of where species and populations come from, as well as the linking of genetic traits to particular geographical locations, has resurfaced as both a scientific and political site of interest more recently through the study of population genetics in both humans and non‐humans. This article explores the ways in which genetics and notions of 'authentic', 'indigenous', and 'endemic' have become intertwined with everyday practices in research. Using the case of human and non‐human genetics to compare and contrast the various facets associated with genetic identity, we seek to develop a broader picture of the ways in which genetics plays an important role in stabilizing categories of origin.

In recent years, cross-national collaboration in medical research has gained increased policy attention. Policies are developed to enhance data sharing, ensure open-access, and harmonize international standards and ethics rules in order to promote access to existing resources and increase scientific output. In tandem with this promotion of data sharing, numerous ethics policies are developed to control data flows and protect privacy and confidentiality. Both sets of policy making, however, pay limited attention to the moral decisions and social ties enacted in the everyday routines of scientific work. This paper takes its point of departure in the practices of a Danish laboratory with great experience in international collaboration regarding genetic research. We focus on a simple query, what makes genetic material and health data flow, and which hopes and concerns travel along with them? We explore what we call the flows, the nonflows, and the overflows of material and information, and we document the work producing the flows of health data and biomaterial. We call this work "ethics work" and argue that it is crucial for data sharing though it is rarely articulated in ethics policies, remains inadequately funded, and lacks acknowledgment in policies promoting international data sharing.

Genome Finland tells a story of genomic medicine in Finland from the study of rare Finnish diseases in the 1960s and 1970s to the implementation of personalized medicine in the 2020s. The main focus is on the 21st century – the period after the Human Genome Project – and on the establishment of new infrastructures to support genomic medicine, such as biobanks. The book opens up the reasoning and discussions as well as the settings and events through which Finnish medical genetics reached the top level of international biomedicine in the late 1990s, biobanks and biobank research evolved during the 2000s and 2010s, and large transnational public-private partnership projects utilising massive amounts of genome and patient data started to dominate also Finnish research into the 2020s. In particular, Genome Finland examines and exposes the connections between biomedical science, 'knowledge-based' economy and business, and innovation policy in Finland during the past decades.