Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
As a long-time medical sociologist, I am well used to medical
sneering at our work. However, let us leave aside Tessa Richards's
bizarre notion that one can neither learn scientific methods nor stimulate
scientific curiosity from the study of society as opposed to the study of
nature and consider why an ignorance of such matters is remarkably
dangerous in the face of the ‘genomic challenge'.
The fact is that the new genetic science is transforming the
possibilities for the way in which human societies are organized and in
which human beings relate to other in a fashion which we have barely begun
to recognize. Its consequences emerge in the strangest places - I have a
colleague who is much involved in the world of dog shows and was quite
chilled recently when I asked him what cloning would mean for breeding
championships! More seriously, the UK can only achieve the status of
‘Europe's genome valley' if public unease about the implications of the
technology can be understood and addressed through methods of regulation
and accountability which are not unduly burdensome to industry or
obstructive to scientific research. As the biotechnology industry is
increasingly recognizing, there is no virtue in spending billions to
develop new products which you cannot bring to market for lack of public
confidence. This is a classic problem for empirical social science
research.
Similarly, the application of genetic science in clinical practice
has long been recognized as raising profound ethical issues about eugenics
and reproductive choice. It is, however, the work of sociologists and
psychologists which is showing how difficult it is to realise the armchair
agendas of bioethics under the practical contingencies of clinical
genetics. The emerging debate about the transfer of genetic work from
specialist centres into primary care will raise these problems in a more
acute form - if it is hard to maintain ethical standards in a few
specialist centres with relatively generous time per patient, how much
more difficult will it be for thousands of GPs under much greater
pressure? What are the practical solutions to this problem?
These examples could be multiplied severalfold - I have, for example,
said nothing about the implications for the insurance industry, for both
the civil and criminal legal system or even for ordinary family
relationships, of what health services may do with genetic knowledge.
However, it should be abundantly clear that both the NIH and the EU have
given an important message to the community in their decisions to allocate
a significant percentage of their expenditure on human genome research to
study the law, ethics and social impact of these developments. I would
hope that the BMJ might endorse a similar investment here on the part of
the research councils and the DTI rather than simplistic editorial
sniping.
Robert Dingwall
Professor of Sociology
Director, Genetics and Society Unit,
University of Nottingham
Competing interests:
No competing interests
07 February 1999
Robert Dingwall
Professor of Sociology and Director, Genetics and Society Unit
The genomic challenge - to social science as well?
Dear Sir
As a long-time medical sociologist, I am well used to medical
sneering at our work. However, let us leave aside Tessa Richards's
bizarre notion that one can neither learn scientific methods nor stimulate
scientific curiosity from the study of society as opposed to the study of
nature and consider why an ignorance of such matters is remarkably
dangerous in the face of the ‘genomic challenge'.
The fact is that the new genetic science is transforming the
possibilities for the way in which human societies are organized and in
which human beings relate to other in a fashion which we have barely begun
to recognize. Its consequences emerge in the strangest places - I have a
colleague who is much involved in the world of dog shows and was quite
chilled recently when I asked him what cloning would mean for breeding
championships! More seriously, the UK can only achieve the status of
‘Europe's genome valley' if public unease about the implications of the
technology can be understood and addressed through methods of regulation
and accountability which are not unduly burdensome to industry or
obstructive to scientific research. As the biotechnology industry is
increasingly recognizing, there is no virtue in spending billions to
develop new products which you cannot bring to market for lack of public
confidence. This is a classic problem for empirical social science
research.
Similarly, the application of genetic science in clinical practice
has long been recognized as raising profound ethical issues about eugenics
and reproductive choice. It is, however, the work of sociologists and
psychologists which is showing how difficult it is to realise the armchair
agendas of bioethics under the practical contingencies of clinical
genetics. The emerging debate about the transfer of genetic work from
specialist centres into primary care will raise these problems in a more
acute form - if it is hard to maintain ethical standards in a few
specialist centres with relatively generous time per patient, how much
more difficult will it be for thousands of GPs under much greater
pressure? What are the practical solutions to this problem?
These examples could be multiplied severalfold - I have, for example,
said nothing about the implications for the insurance industry, for both
the civil and criminal legal system or even for ordinary family
relationships, of what health services may do with genetic knowledge.
However, it should be abundantly clear that both the NIH and the EU have
given an important message to the community in their decisions to allocate
a significant percentage of their expenditure on human genome research to
study the law, ethics and social impact of these developments. I would
hope that the BMJ might endorse a similar investment here on the part of
the research councils and the DTI rather than simplistic editorial
sniping.
Robert Dingwall
Professor of Sociology
Director, Genetics and Society Unit,
University of Nottingham
Competing interests: No competing interests