Search results

As nation-states make greater efforts to regulate the flow of people on the move—refugees, economic migrants, and international travelers alike—advocates of DNA profiling technologies claim DNA testing provides a reliable and objective way of revealing a person's true identity for immigration procedures. This article examines the use of DNA testing for family reunification in immigration cases in Finland, Germany, and the United States—the first transatlantic analysis of such cases—to explore the relationship between technology, the meaning of family, and immigration. Drawing on our analyses of archival records, government documents, and interviews with immigration stakeholders, we argue that DNA testing is not conclusive about the meaning of family. While the technology may facilitate decision making for both would-be immigrants and state officials, our study shows hesitancy among the latter to let DNA testing make the final determination. We introduce the concept of social validity—whether the interpretation of test results matches social or political meanings in a given local context—in order to make sense of the complexities and challenges of DNA testing in practice. We show that DNA testing is not just a technology of belonging or a way to claim citizenship rights. It may also enable exclusion and denial of rights.

Die Staaten der Europäischen Union haben in den vergangenen Jahren ein »biotechnologisches Grenzregime« errichtet, das über ein nahezu totales Wissen über die Körper von Einwanderern und Staatsbürgern verfügt. Die gesammelten biometrischen Daten reichen von Fingerabdrücken und Iris-Scans zur Identitätsfeststellung über Röntgenbilder des Körpers zum Zweck der Altersbestimmung bis hin zu DNAAnalysen im Rahmen von Familienzusammenführungen. Dieser interdisziplinäre Band bietet einen detaillierten Einblick in gegenwärtige biotechnologische Grenzregime im Kontext neoliberaler Herrschaftsstrukturen und analysiert zentrale politische, soziale und ethische Implikationen dieser Praxis. Torsten Heinemann ist Marie Curie Fellow an der University of California, Berkeley, und Juniorprofessor für Soziologie an der Universität Hamburg. Martin G. Weiß ist Assistenzprofessor am Institut für Philosophie an der Universität Klagenfurt.

Die Covid-19-Pandemie und die ökologischen Krisen haben in den vergangenen Jahren eindrucksvoll die tiefgreifende Verwobenheit von Natur, Technologie und Gesellschaft verdeutlicht. Vor diesem Hintergrund machen die Beiträge dieses Bandes das Verhältnis von Natur und Kultur, Diskurs und Materialität zum Gegenstand sozialwissenschaftlicher Reflexionen. Orientiert an der Machtanalytik Michel Foucaults, Ansätzen der Wissenschafts- und Technikforschung sowie feministischen und postkolonialen Debatten gehen die Autor:innen der Frage nach, was Leben und dessen Regierung im 21. Jahrhundert ausmacht. Sie beleuchten anhand einer Vielzahl empirischer Phänomene die mannigfaltigen Zugriffe, Durchdrungenheiten und Artikulationen regierten Lebens. Dabei bringt der Band internationale Diskussionen um menschliches und »mehr-als-menschliches« Leben in einen produktiven Dialog mit Traditionslinien kritischer Theorie.

Frontmatter -- Inhalt -- Vorwort der Herausgeber -- Wissensorte -- Biological Computer Laboratory -- Ist jetzt alles ›Netzwerk‹? -- Epistemische Häufungen -- Das Wissen kreativer Laboratorien -- Wissensobjekte -- MAZ ab. -- Über die Quasi-Objekte von Bruno Latour und den Phonometer des Abbé Rousselot -- Angewandte Forschung? -- Implizites Wissen und Wissensvermittlung -- ›Hirnforschung‹ zwischen Labor und Talkshow -- Neurokognitive Bildgebung -- ›Economists in the Wild‹ -- Strahlende Landschaften -- Autorinnen und Autoren -- Backmatter

Purpose The aim of this study was to determine how attitudes toward the return of genomic research results vary internationally. Methods We analyzed the "Your DNA, Your Say" online survey of public perspectives on genomic data sharing including responses from 36,268 individuals across 22 low-, middle-, and high-income countries, and these were gathered in 15 languages. We analyzed how participants responded when asked whether return of results (RoR) would motivate their decision to donate DNA or health data. We examined variation across the study countries and compared the responses of participants from other countries with those from the United States, which has been the subject of the majority of research on return of genomic results to date. Results There was substantial variation in the extent to which respondents reported being influenced by RoR. However, only respondents from Russia were more influenced than those from the United States, and respondents from 20 countries had lower odds of being partially or wholly influenced than those from the United States. Conclusion There is substantial international variation in the extent to which the RoR may motivate people's intent to donate DNA or health data. The United States may not be a clear indicator of global attitudes. Participants' preferences for return of genomic results globally should be considered.

Analyzing genomic data across populations is central to understanding the role of genetic factors in health and disease. Successful data sharing relies on public support, which requires attention to whether people around the world are willing to donate their data that are then subsequently shared with others for research. However, studies of such public perceptions are geographically limited and do not enable comparison. This paper presents results from a very large public survey on attitudes toward genomic data sharing. Data from 36,268 individuals across 22 countries (gathered in 15 languages) are presented. In general, publics across the world do not appear to be aware of, nor familiar with, the concepts of DNA, genetics, and genomics. Willingness to donate one's DNA and health data for research is relatively low, and trust in the process of data's being shared with multiple users (e.g., doctors, researchers, governments) is also low. Participants were most willing to donate DNA or health information for research when the recipient was specified as a medical doctor and least willing to donate when the recipient was a for-profit researcher. Those who were familiar with genetics and who were trusting of the users asking for data were more likely to be willing to donate. However, less than half of participants trusted more than one potential user of data, although this varied across countries. Genetic information was not uniformly seen as different from other forms of health information, but there was an association between seeing genetic information as special in some way compared to other health data and increased willingness to donate. The global perspective provided by our "Your DNA, Your Say" study is valuable for informing the development of international policy and practice for sharing genomic data. It highlights that the research community not only needs to be worthy of trust by the public, but also urgent steps need to be taken to authentically communicate why genomic research is necessary and how data donation, and subsequent sharing, is integral to this.Analyzing genomic data across populations is central to understanding the role of genetic factors in health and disease. Successful data sharing relies on public support, which requires attention to whether people around the world are willing to donate their data that are then subsequently shared with others for research. However, studies of such public perceptions are geographically limited and do not enable comparison. This paper presents results from a very large public survey on attitudes toward genomic data sharing. Data from 36,268 individuals across 22 countries (gathered in 15 languages) are presented. In general, publics across the world do not appear to be aware of, nor familiar with, the concepts of DNA, genetics, and genomics. Willingness to donate one's DNA and health data for research is relatively low, and trust in the process of data's being shared with multiple users (e.g., doctors, researchers, governments) is also low. Participants were most willing to donate DNA or health information for research when the recipient was specified as a medical doctor and least willing to donate when the recipient was a for-profit researcher. Those who were familiar with genetics and who were trusting of the users asking for data were more likely to be willing to donate. However, less than half of participants trusted more than one potential user of data, although this varied across countries. Genetic information was not uniformly seen as different from other forms of health information, but there was an association between seeing genetic information as special in some way compared to other health data and increased willingness to donate. The global perspective provided by our "Your DNA, Your Say" study is valuable for informing the development of international policy and practice for sharing genomic data. It highlights that the research community not only needs to be worthy of trust by the public, but also urgent steps need to be taken to authentically communicate why genomic research is necessary and how data donation, and subsequent sharing, is integral to this. ; publishedVersion

Analyzing genomic data across populations is central to understanding the role of genetic factors in health and disease. Successful data sharing relies on public support, which requires attention to whether people around the world are willing to donate their data that are then subsequently shared with others for research. However, studies of such public perceptions are geographically limited and do not enable comparison. This paper presents results from a very large public survey on attitudes toward genomic data sharing. Data from 36,268 individuals across 22 countries (gathered in 15 languages) are presented. In general, publics across the world do not appear to be aware of, nor familiar with, the concepts of DNA, genetics, and genomics. Willingness to donate one's DNA and health data for research is relatively low, and trust in the process of data's being shared with multiple users (e.g., doctors, researchers, governments) is also low. Participants were most willing to donate DNA or health information for research when the recipient was specified as a medical doctor and least willing to donate when the recipient was a for-profit researcher. Those who were familiar with genetics and who were trusting of the users asking for data were more likely to be willing to donate. However, less than half of participants trusted more than one potential user of data, although this varied across countries. Genetic information was not uniformly seen as different from other forms of health information, but there was an association between seeing genetic information as special in some way compared to other health data and increased willingness to donate. The global perspective provided by our "Your DNA, Your Say" study is valuable for informing the development of international policy and practice for sharing genomic data. It highlights that the research community not only needs to be worthy of trust by the public, but also urgent steps need to be taken to authentically communicate why genomic research is necessary and how data donation, and subsequent sharing, is integral to this.