Suchergebnisse

Background: Research on attitudes toward genetics and medicine registers skepticism among minority communities, but the reasons for this skepticism are not well known. In the past, studies linked mistrust of the medical system to historical ethics violations involving minority groups and to suspicions about ideological premise and political intent. Methods: To assess public knowledge, attitudes, and behavior regarding human-genetics research, we surveyed 858 Americans onsite in four community settings or online in a geographically nonspecific manner. Results: Compared to participants as a whole, African Americans were significantly more likely to believe that clinical trials might be dangerous and that the federal government knowingly conducted unethical research, including studies in which risky vaccines were administered to prison populations. However, African Americans were also significantly more likely to believe that the federal government worked to prevent environmental exposure to toxicants harmful to people with genetic vulnerabilities. Conclusions: Our data suggest that most Americans trust government to act ethically in sponsoring and conducting research, including genetics research, but that African Americans are particularly likely to see government as powerfully protective in some settings yet selectively disingenuous in others.

Anti-Asian xenophobia (AAX) spiked during Covid-19, exacerbating health disparities among affected groups. This study uses data from a national survey to identify predictors of AAX to enable targeting of audience segments and effective messaging to counteract Anti-Asian attitudes and behaviors. Using Intergroup Threat Theory (ITT) to pinpoint possible predictors, we find that situation specific variables such as favorability toward Trump and information seeking and avoidance behaviors consistently predict higher levels of AAX. Individual differences like being female, well-educated, and having a high tolerance for ambiguity are negatively related to AAX.

Breast cancer remained a hidden disease among women in the United States until the 20th century. It was initially brought into the open with public revelations from individual women, which was followed by the development of support groups and ultimately the formation of political activist groups with various priorities. Those concerned with toxic environmental exposures as a potential cause of breast cancer organized, demonstrated, and lobbied for research funding and eventually became partners in the research that arose from their efforts. One representative example was the Breast Cancer and Environment Research Centers (BCERC) Project (2003–2010), supported by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) and the National Cancer Institute (NCI). The BCERC embedded a Community Outreach and Translational Core into its formal organizational infrastructure to ensure advocate involvement in the standing scientific subcommittees of BCERC, the first project funded by NIEHS and NCI to do so. The formal integration of advocates as partners in scientific studies focused on breast cancer is embedded in a rich history of action on the part of many courageous women. This article describes the historical evolution of breast cancer activism in the United States, which provided a critical foundation for the formation of BCERC. This description is followed by a discussion of BCERC as an example of the transdisciplinary research model, a paradigm that strives for inclusion of multiple stakeholders and increased interaction between scientists from a wide spectrum of disciplines, advocates, and lay audiences in order to more effectively conduct critical research and to translate and disseminate its findings.

COVID-19 has dominated news coverage since the beginning of the pandemic. The extent to which exposure to such news affected perceptions of medical research and other health issues is not clear, especially among older adults who are more susceptible to infection and experience more COVID-19-related morbidity and mortality. This study uses a two-wave national panel of U.S. adults ages 50 years and older ( n = 1,240) to examine the mechanism through which exposure to source-specific news outlets (e.g., national network broadcasts, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC) affected willingness to participate in medical research for COVID-19 and Alzheimer's disease (AD), both of which afflicts millions of older adults. We hypothesized that spillover from COVID-19 information exposure influenced potential research participation in AD research through attitudes toward science and COVID-19 misperceptions. Path analysis results provide empirical support for spillover effects which vary by news outlet.