IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v26y1999i4p233-240.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does familiarity breed concern? Bench scientists and the Human Genome Mapping Project

Author

Listed:
  • Peter Glasner
  • Harry Rothman

Abstract

A survey of 1000 users of the UK Human Genome Project (HGP) Resource Centre in Cambridge, UK found that many respondents concerned with mapping and sequencing genetic material felt strongly that attempts to patent the results of the HGP would impede the future development of diagnostics and therapeutics, and that current attempts to commercialise the results were premature. Contrary to the views of some senior scientists, the majority felt that the HGP posed new ethical issues for society. This paper suggests some explanations for these apparent discrepancies of view, in the context of research into the public understanding of science. It focuses on the various social worlds of those close to the laboratory bench in contrast to those more instrumental in influencing S&T policy. The current turn towards recognising the complexity of both scientific and lay views concerning the new genetic technologies is welcome. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Peter Glasner & Harry Rothman, 1999. "Does familiarity breed concern? Bench scientists and the Human Genome Mapping Project," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 26(4), pages 233-240, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:26:y:1999:i:4:p:233-240
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/147154399781782383
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:26:y:1999:i:4:p:233-240. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.