Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T02:14:25.211Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Introduction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 October 2017

By
Susan Bouregy ,
Elena L. Grigorenko ,
Mei Tan  and
Stephen R. Latham
Edited by
Susan Bouregy ,
Elena L. Grigorenko ,
Stephen R. Latham  and
Mei Tan
Susan Bouregy
Affiliation:
Yale University, Connecticut
Elena L. Grigorenko
Affiliation:
Yale University, Connecticut
Stephen R. Latham
Affiliation:
Yale University, Connecticut
Mei Tan
Affiliation:
University of Texas, Houston
Get access
Type
Chapter
Information
Genetics, Ethics and Education , pp. 1 - 14
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2017

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andrews, L. B. (1992). Torts and the double helix: Malpractice liability for failure to warn of genetic risks. Houston Law Review, 29, 149–184.Google Scholar
Ansari, D., De Smedt, B., & Grabner, R. H. (2012). Neuroeducation: A critical overview of an emerging field. Neuroethics, 5, 105–117. doi:10.1007/s12152-011-9119-3Google Scholar
Bowling, B. V., Huether, C. A., Wang, L., Myers, M. F., Markle, G. C., Dean, G. E., et al. (2008). Genetic literacy of undergraduate non-science majors and the impact of introductoy biology and genetics courses. BioScience, 58, 654–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchanan, A. (2011). Cognitive enhancement and education. Theory and Research in Education, 2, 145–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchanan, A., Brock, D., Daniels, N., & Wikler, D. (2000). From chance to choice: Genetics and justice. New York, NY: Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burton, A. (2009). Should patient confidentiality come second to the prevention of disease in others? The Lancet Oncology, 10, 210–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carew, T. J., & Magsamen, S. H. (2010). Neuroscience and education: An ideal partnership for producing evidence-based solutions to guide 21st century learning. Neuron, 67, 685–688. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2010.08.028Google Scholar
Clayton, E. W. (1997). Genetic testing in children. Journal of Medicine & Philosophy, 22, 233–251.Google Scholar
Collier, R. (2012). Genetic tests for athletic ability: Science or snake oil? Canadian Medical Association Journal, 184, E43–E44.Google Scholar
Davies, K. (2010). The $1,000 genome: The revolution in DNA sequencing and the new era of personalized medicine. New York, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
Devonshire, I. M., & Dommett, E. J. (2010). Neuroscience: Viable applications in education? The Neuroscientist, 16, 349–356. doi:10.1177/1073858410370900Google Scholar
Dickens, B. M., Pei, N., & Taylor, K. M. (1996). Legal and ethical issues in genetic testing and counseling for susceptibility to breast, ovarian and colon cancer. CMAJ Canadian Medical Association Journal, 154, 813–818.Google ScholarPubMed
Dougherty, M. J., Pleasants, C., Solow, L., Wong, A., & Zhang, H. (2011). A comprehensive analysis of high school genetics standards: Are states keeping pace with modern genetics? CBE Life Sciences Education, 10, 318–327. doi:10.1187/cbe.10-09-0122CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Feero, W., & Green, E. D. (2011). Genomics education for health care professionals in the 21st century. JAMA, 306, 989–990. doi:10.1001/jama.2011.1245Google Scholar
Fischer, K. W., Goswami, U., Geake, J., & the Task Force on the Future of Educational Neuroscience. (2010). The future of educational neuroscience. Mind, Brain, and Education, 4, 68–80. doi:10.1111/j.1751-228X.2010.01086.xGoogle Scholar
Fisher, C. B., & Harrington McCarthy, E. L. (2013). Ethics in prevention science involving genetic testing. Prevention Science, 14, 310–318. doi:10.1007/s11121-012-0318-xGoogle Scholar
Gollust, S. E., Hull, S. C., & Wilfond, B. S. (2002). Limitations of direct-to-consumer advertising for clinical genetic testing. JAMA, 288, 1762–1767.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Greenbaum, D. (2012). Introducing personal genomics to college athletes: Potentials and pitfalls. The American Journal of Bioethics, 12, 45–47. doi:10.1080/15265161.2012.656811Google Scholar
Greenbaum, D., Sboner, A., Mu, X. J., & Gerstein, M. (2011). Genomics and privacy: Implications of the new reality of closed data for the field. PLoS Computational Biology, 7, e1002278.Google Scholar
Grigorenko, E. L. (2004). Genetic bases of developmental dyslexia: A capsule review of heritability estimates. Enfance, 3, 273–287.Google Scholar
Grigorenko, E. L. (2005). A conservative meta-analysis of linkage and linkage-association studies of developmental dyslexia. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9, 285–316.Google Scholar
Grigorenko, E. L. (2007a). Bridging genomics and education. Retrieved from www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentId=13909.Google Scholar
Grigorenko, E. L. (2007b). How can genomics inform education? Mind, Brain, and Education, 1, 20–27.Google Scholar
Grigorenko, E. L. (2010). Bringing genomic sciences to the classroom. Science. Retrieved from www.sciencemag.org/cgi/eletters/328/5977/5512#13440Google Scholar
Grigorenko, E. L. (2015). Genomic sciences for developmentalists: A merge of science and practice. New Directions in Child and Adolescent Development, 147.Google Scholar
Gurwitz, D., & Bregman-Eschet, Y. (2009). Personal genomics services: Whose genomes? European Journal of Human Genetics, 17, 883–889.Google Scholar
Guttmacher, A. E., Porteous, M. E., & McInerney, J. D. (2007). Educating health-care professionals about genetics and genomics. Nature Reviews Genetics, 8, 151–157.Google Scholar
Gymrek, M., McGuire, A. L., Golan, D., Halperin, E., & Erlich, Y. (2013). Identifying personal genomes by surname inference. Science, 339, 321–324. doi:10.1126/science.1229566Google Scholar
Hanson, J. W., & Thomson, E. J. (2000). Genetic testing in children: Ethical and social points to consider. Pediatric Annals, 29, 285–291.Google Scholar
Hardiman, M., Rinne, L., Gregory, E., & Yarmolinskaya, J. (2012). Neuroethics, neuroeducation, and classroom teaching: Where the brain sciences meet pedagogy. Neuroethics(2), 135–143. doi:10.1007/s12152-011-9116-6Google Scholar
Harris, J. (2007). Enhancing evolution: The ethical case for making better people. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Henderson, B. J., & Maguire, B. T. (2000). Three lay mental models of disease inheritance. Social Science & Medicine, 50, 293–301.Google Scholar
Hensley Alford, S., McBride, C. M., Reid, R. J., Larson, E. B., Baxevanis, A. D., & Brody, L. C. (2011). Participation in genetic testing research varies by social group. Public Health Genomics, 14, 85–93.Google Scholar
Hook, C. C., DiMagno, E. P., & Tefferi, A. (2004). Primer on medical genomics, Part XIII: Ethical and regulatory issues. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 79, 645–650.Google Scholar
Hoppe, N. (2013). From omics to etics to policy and ethics: Regulating evolution. Frontiers in Genetics, 4, 1–2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Howard-Jones, P. A., & Fenton, K. D. (2012). The need for interdisciplinary dialogue in developing ethical approaches to neuroeducational research. Neuroethics, 5, 119–134. doi:10.1007/s12152-011-9101-0Google Scholar
Howard, H. C., Avard, D., & Borry, P. (2011). Are the kids really all right? Direct-to-consumer genetic testing in children: Are company policies clashing with professional norms? European Journal of Human Genetics, 19, 1122–1126. doi:10.1038/ejhg.2011.94Google Scholar
Jin, J. (2000). An evaluation of the Ethical, Legal and Social Implications program of the U.S. Human Genome Project. Princeton Journal of Bioethics, 3, 35–50.Google ScholarPubMed
Kaye, J. (2008). The regulation of direct-to-consumer genetic tests. Human Molecular Genetics, 17(R2), 15.Google Scholar
Kegley, J. A. (1996). Using genetic information: The individual and the community. Medicine and Law, 15, 377–389.Google Scholar
Khoury, M. J., McBride, C. M., Schully, S. D., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Feero, W. G., Janssens, A. C. J. W., et al. (2009). The Scientific Foundation for Personal Genomics: Recommendations from a National Institutes of Health-Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Multidisciplinary Workshop. Genetics in Medicine, 11(8), 559–567.Google Scholar
Kingsberry, S. Q., Mickel, E., Wartel, S. G., & Holmes, V. (2011). An education model for integrating genetics and genomics into social work practice. Social Work in Public Health, 26, 392–404. doi:10.1080/10911350902990924CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Korf, B. R. (2011). Genetics and genomics education: The next generation. Genetics in Medicine, 13, 201–202.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kung, J. T., & Gelbart, M. E. (2012). Getting a head start: The importance of personal genetics education in high schools. Yale Journal of Biology & Medicine, 85, 87–92.Google Scholar
Lacroix, M., Nycum, G., Godard, B., & Knoppers, B. M. (2008). Should physicians warn patients’ relatives of genetic risks? CMAJ Canadian Medical Association Journal, 178, 593–595.Google Scholar
Lanie, A. D., Jayaratne, T. E., Sheldon, J. P., Kardia, S. L., Anderson, E. S., Feldbaum, M., et al. (2004). Exploring the public understanding of basic genetic concepts. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 13, 305–320.Google Scholar
Lucassen, A., & Montgomery, J. (2010). Predictive genetic testing in children: Where are we now? An overview and a UK perspective. Familial Cancer, 9, 3–7.Google Scholar
Madsen, A. (2010, October 1). Peeking at “the cards you were dealt.” Quest, 17.Google Scholar
Maher, B. S. (2011). Human genetics: Genomes on prescription. Nature, 478, 22–24. doi:10.1038/478022aGoogle Scholar
McConkie-Rosell, A., & Spiridigliozzi, G. A. (2004). “Family matters”: A conceptual framework for genetic testing in children. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 13, 9–29.Google Scholar
McGuire, A. L., & Burke, W. (2008). An unwelcome side effect of direct-to-consumer personal genome testing: Raiding the medical commons. JAMA, 300, 2669–2671.Google Scholar
Meslin, E. M., Thomson, E. J., & Boyer, J. T. (1997). The Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications Research Program at the National Human Genome Research Institute. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 7, 291–298.Google Scholar
Middleton, A., Hewison, J., & Mueller, R. F. (1998). Attitudes of deaf adults toward genetic testing for hereditary deafness. American Journal of Human Genetics, 63, 1175–1180.Google Scholar
Mills Shaw, K. R., Van Horne, K., Zhang, H., & Boughman, J. (2008). Essay contest reveals misconceptions of high school students in genetics content. Genetics, 178, 1157–1168.Google Scholar
The National Cancer Institute. (2013). HINTS briefs: Public awareness of direct-to-consumer genetic tests. Washington, DC: The National Cancer Institute.Google Scholar
Nelkin, D., & Tancredi, L. (1991). Classify and control: Genetic information in the schools. American Journal of Law & Medicine, 17, 51.Google Scholar
Parker, M. (2010). Genetic testing in children and young people. Familial Cancer, 9, 15–18.Google Scholar
Rodriguez, L. L., Brooks, L. D., Greenber, J. H., & Green, E. D. (2013). The complexities of genomic identifiability. Science, 339, 275–276. doi:10.1126/science.1234593Google Scholar
Savulescu, J., & Bostrom, N. (Eds.). (2009). Human enhancement. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Serpati, L., & Loughan, A. R. (2012). Teacher perceptions of neuroeducation: A mixed methods survey of teachers in the United States. Mind, Brain & Education, 6, 174–176. doi:10.1111/j.1751-228X.2012.01153.xGoogle Scholar
Skiba, T., Landi, N., Wagner, R., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2011). In search of the perfect phenotype: An analysis of linkage and association studies of reading and reading-related processes. Behavior Genetics, 41, 6–30.Google Scholar
Su, P. (2013). Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: A comprehensive view. Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, 86, 359–365.Google Scholar
Taylor, J., Roehrig, A. D., Soden Hensler, B., Connor, C. M., & Schatschneider, C. (2010). Teacher quality moderates the genetic effects on early reading. Science, 328, 512–514.Google Scholar
Watson, J. D. (1990). The Human Genome Project: past, present, and future. Science, 248, 44–49.Google Scholar
Wright, C. F., Hall, A., & Zimmern, R. L. (2011). Regulating direct-to-consumer genetic tests: What is all the fuss about? Genetics in Medicine, 13(4), 295–300.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×