Warranted concerns, warranted outlooks: a focus group study of public understandings of genetic research.

This paper discusses how the American public accounts for the concerns that they have about genetic research and the benefits that they foresee. We develop a general framework for discussing public claims about genetic technology based on Stephen Toulmin's model of warrants in argumentation. After a review of the results from public opinion polls about genetic research, we present a focus group study of public understandings of genetics. We outline the warrants, or publicly accepted "good reasons", that this group offers for accepting some aspects of genetic technology and for rejecting other aspects. The warrants presented by the public in their discussion of genetic research indicate that the public has a complex, informed understanding of genetic research, albeit a non-technical one. The paper concludes with a discussion of the importance of public participation in debates over genetic research and the ways that researchers and policymakers could adapt to public concerns about genetics.

[1]  Amanda Amos,et al.  The new genetics and health: mobilizing lay expertise , 1998, Public understanding of science.

[2]  Charles Weiner,et al.  Drawing the Line in Genetic Engineering: Self-Regulation and Public Participation , 2001, Perspectives in biology and medicine.

[3]  On the nature of the physician's understanding. , 1976, The Journal of medicine and philosophy.

[4]  G. Gaskell,et al.  Worlds apart? The reception of genetically modified foods in Europe and the U.S. , 1999, Science.

[5]  N. Holtzman,et al.  The media and public reaction to genetic research. , 2002, JAMA.

[6]  Edward F. McQuarrie,et al.  Focus Groups: Theory and Practice , 1991 .

[7]  Renato Schibeci,et al.  Problematic Publics: A Critical Review of Surveys of Public Attitudes to Biotechnology , 1997 .

[8]  C. Adley,et al.  Irish public perceptions and attitudes to modern biotechnology: an overview with a focus on GM foods. , 2001, Trends in biotechnology.

[9]  J. Kitzinger,et al.  Developing Focus Group Research: Politics, Theory and Practice , 1998 .

[10]  P. Atkinson,et al.  Lay constructions of genetic risk , 1992 .

[11]  Gail Geller,et al.  Mapping the human genome: An assessment of media coverage and public reaction , 2002, Genetics in Medicine.

[12]  L. Furr,et al.  Perceptions of genetics research as harmful to society: differences among samples of African-Americans and European-Americans. , 2002, Genetic testing.

[13]  S. Toulmin.  The uses of argument , 1960 .

[14]  A. W. Nienhuis.  Mapping a human genome. , 1978, The New England journal of medicine.

[15]  B. Gansbacher.  Policy statement on the social, ethical and public awareness issues in gene therapy. , 2002 .

[16]  T. Richards,et al.  Meeting the challenge of genetic advance , 1998, BMJ.

[17]  I. Nippert.  The pros and cons of human therapeutic cloning in the public debate. , 2002, Journal of biotechnology.

[18]  B. Bates,et al.  Evaluating Direct-to-Consumer Marketing of Race-Based Pharmacogenomics: A Focus Group Study of Public Understandings of Applied Genomic Medication , 2004, Journal of health communication.

[19]  H. Willard.  2001 ASHG Presidential Address. On black boxes and storytellers: lessons learned in human genetics. , 2002, American journal of human genetics.

[20]  B. Bates.  Ashcroft Among the Senators: Justification, Strategy, and Tactics in the 2001 Attorney General Confirmation Hearing , 2003 .

[21]  M R Anderlik,et al.  Privacy and confidentiality of genetic information: what rules for the new science? , 2001, Annual review of genomics and human genetics.

[22]  I. Barns,et al.  “What Do You Think about Genetic Medicine?” Facilitating Sociable Public Discourse on Developments in the New Genetics , 2000, Science, technology & human values.

[23]  G. Myers,et al.  Can focus groups be analysed as talk , 1999 .

[24]  Darryl Macer,et al.  Changing attitudes to biotechnology in Japan , 2000, Nature Biotechnology.

[25]  M. Hasian.  The rhetoric of eugenics in Anglo-American thought , 1996 .

[26]  J. Krumm.  GENETIC DISCRIMINATION - WHY CONGRESS MUST BAN GENETIC TESTING IN THE WORKPLACE , 2002, The Journal of legal medicine.

[27]  H. Gottweis.  Gene therapy and the public: a matter of trust , 2002, Gene Therapy.

[28]  D. Macer,et al.  International perceptions and approval of gene therapy. , 1995, Human gene therapy.

[29]  A. Kerr,et al.  Theorizing Subjects and Subject Matter in Focus Group Research , 1999 .

[30]  B. Maguire,et al.  Three lay mental models of disease inheritance. , 2000, Social science & medicine.

[31]  E. Einsiedel.  Cloning and its discontents—a Canadian perspective , 2000, Nature Biotechnology.

[32]  Stephen Toulmin,et al.  How Medicine Saved the Life of Ethics , 2015, Perspectives in biology and medicine.

[33]  Susanna Hornig Priest,et al.  US public opinion divided over biotechnology? , 2000, Nature Biotechnology.

[34]  G. Vines.  Genetics: let the public decide , 1997, BMJ.

[35]  Diane M. Griffiths,et al.  THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA , 2007 .

[36]  Mildred K. Cho,et al.  Patenting human genetic material: refocusing the debate , 2000, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[37]  D. Morgan.  Focus groups for qualitative research. , 1988, Hospital guest relations report.

[38]  G. Smith,et al.  The potential social impact of predictive genetic testing for susceptibility to common chronic diseases: a review and proposed research agenda. , 1994, Sociology of health & illness.