Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Science and Society
  • Published:

Human genetic research: emerging trends in ethics

Nature Reviews Genetics volume 6, pages 75–79 (2005)Cite this article

Abstract

Genetic research has moved from Mendelian genetics to sequence maps to the study of natural human genetic variation at the level of the genome. This past decade of discovery has been accompanied by a shift in emphasis towards the ethical principles of reciprocity, mutuality, solidarity, citizenry and universality.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Knoppers, B. M. & Chadwick, R. The Human Genome Project: under an international ethical microscope. Science 265, 2035–2036 (1994).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. World Health Organization. Genetic databases: assessing the benefits and the impact on human and patient rights (World Health Organization, Geneva, 2003).

  3. Marteau, T. & Richards, M. (eds) The Troubled Helix: Social and Psychological Implications of the New Genetics (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1996).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  4. Clarke, A. (ed.) Genetic Counselling: Practice and Principles (Routledge, London, 1994).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  5. Wertz, D. C. Ethical and legal implications of the new genetics: issues for discussion. Soc. Sci. Med. 35, 495–505 (1992).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Danish Council on Ethics. Ethics and mapping of the human genome (Danish Council on Ethics, Copenhagen, 1993).

  7. Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Genetic screening: ethical issues (Nuffield Council on Bioethics, London, 1993).

  8. NIH-DOE Working Group on Ethical, Legal and Social Implications of Human Genome Research. Genetic information and health insurance report of the task force on genetic information and insurance (US National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, 1993).

  9. Committee on the Ethics of Gene Therapy. Report of the committee on the ethics of gene therapy (UK Department of Health, London, 1992).

  10. De Wachter, M. A. M. Ethical aspects of human germ-line gene therapy. Bioethics 7, 166–177 (1993).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Pembrey, M. in Ethics in Reproductive Medicine (eds Bromham, D. et al.) 11–20 (Springer, London, 1992).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  12. National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Cloning human beings (National Bioethics Advisory Council, Rockville, 1997).

  13. Robertson, J. Liberty, identity, and human cloning. Tex. Law Rev. 76, 1371–1456 (1998).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Knoppers, B. M., Hirtle M. & Glass K. C. Commercialization of genetic research and public policy. Science 286, 2277–2278 (1999).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Burgess, M. in The Commercialisation of Genetic Research: Legal Ethical and Policy Issues (eds Caulfield, T. & Williams-Jones, B.) 181–194 (Kluwer Academic Plenum, New York, 1999).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  16. Resnik, D. B. The morality of human gene patents. Kennedy Inst. Ethics J. 7, 43–61 (1997).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Estonian Government. Human genes research act (RT I 2000, 104, 685) <http://cmgm.stanford.edu/biochem118/Papers/Genome%20Papers/Estonian%20Genome%20Res%20Act.pdf> (2001).

  18. 123rd Parliament, Iceland. Act on a health sector database no. 139/1998 (1998).

  19. Buchanan, A. et al. Pharmacogenetics — ethical and regulatory issues in research and clinical practice: report of the consortium on pharmacogenetics, findings and recommendations (Consortium on Pharmacogenetics, Minneapolis, 2002).

  20. Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Pharmacogenetics: ethical issues <http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/fileLibrary/pdf/pharm_short_version2.pdf> (Nuffield Council on Bioethics, London, 2003).

  21. Nuffield Council on Bioethics. The use of genetically modified crops in developing countries <http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/fileLibrary/pdf/ GM_Crops_short_version_FINAL.pdf> (Nuffield Council on Bioethics, London, 2004).

  22. Bell, J. The new genetics in clinical practice. BMJ 316, 618–620 (1998).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Roses, A. D. Pharmacogenetics and future drug development and delivery. Lancet 355, 1358–1361 (2000).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Roses, A. D. Pharmacogenetics and the practice of medicine. Nature 15, 857–865 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Kegley, J. A. in Genetic Information: Acquisition, Access and Control (eds Thompson, A. & Chadwick, R.) 321–329 (Kluwer Academic, New York, 1997).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Beyleveld, D. & Brownsword, R. Human Dignity in Bioethics and Biolaw (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 2001).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Gallagher, A. in Genetic Information: Acquisition, Access and Control (eds Thompson, A. & Chadwick, R.) 267–273 (Kluwer Academic, New York, 1997).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Baylis, F., Downie, J. & Sherwin, S. in Embodying Bioethics: Recent Feminist Advances (eds Donchin, A. & Purdy, L.) 253–268 (Rowman & Littlefield, New York, 1999).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Network of Applied Genetic Medicine. Statement of principles: human genomic research (<http://www.rmga.qc.ca/en/index.htm>/Network of Applied Genetic Medicine, Montreal, 2000).

  30. Deschênes, M., Cardinal, G., Knoppers, B. M. & Glass, K. C. Human genetic research, DNA banking and consent: a question of 'form'? Clin. Genet. 59, 221–239 (2001).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. UNESCO International Bioethics Committee. International declaration on human genetic data (UNESCO, Paris, 2003).

  32. Beskow, L. et al. Informed consent for population-based research involving genetics. JAMA 286, 2315–2321 (2001).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. HUGO Ethics Committee. Statement on DNA sampling: control and access <http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/shinkou/seimei/genomeshishin/html/ guideline/hugo-e.pdf> (Human Genome Organisation, London, 1998).

  34. Godard, B., ten Kate, L., Evers-Kiebooms, G. & Aymé, S. Population genetic screening programmes: principles, techniques and policies. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 11 (Suppl. 2), 49–87 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. DeCode Genetics. Code of ethics (DeCode Genetics, Reykjavik, 2000).

  36. HUGO Ethics Committee. Statement on the principled conduct of genetic research (Human Genome Organisation, London, 1996).

  37. Quebec Network of Applied Genetic Medicine. Statement of principles on the ethical conduct of human genetic research involving populations (Quebec, 2003).

  38. CARTaGENE. CARTaGENE project [online] <http://www.cartagene.qc.ca/en/index.htm> (2003).

  39. Knoppers, B. M. (ed.) Populations and Genetics: Legal and Socio-Ethical Perspectives (Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, 2003).

    Google Scholar 

  40. Knoppers, B. Biobanks: simplifying consent. Nature Rev. Genet. 5, 485 (2004).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioural Research. Screening and counselling for genetic conditions: a report on the ethical, social, and legal implications of genetic screening, counselling, and education programs (US Government Printing Office, Washington DC, 1982).

  42. Clayton, E. W. Ethical, legal, and social implications of genomic medicine. N. Engl. J. Med. 349, 562–569 (2003).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. The American Society of Human Genetics Social Issues Subcommittee on Familial Disclosure. Professional disclosure of familial genetic information. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 62, 474–483 (1998).

  44. World Health Organization. Proposed international guidelines on ethical issues in medical genetics and genetic services (World Health Organization, Geneva, 1998).

  45. McGleenan, T. E. & Wiesing, U. Insurance and genetics: european policy options. Eur. J. Health Law 7, 367–383 (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  46. Chadwick, R. Genetics, choice and responsibility. Health, Risk Soc. 1, 293–300 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Buchanan, A. et al. From Chance to Choice (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2000).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  48. Chadwick, R., Levitt, M. A. & Shickle D. (eds) The Right to Know and the Right Not to Know (Aldershot, Ashgate, 1997).

    Google Scholar 

  49. Rhodes, R. Genetic links, family ties, and social bonds: rights and responsibilities in the face of genetic knowledge. J. Med. Philos. 23, 10–30 (1998).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Berg, K. in Proceedings of the 2nd Symposium of the Council of Europe on Bioethics 122–143 (Council of Europe Press, Strasbourg, 1994).

    Google Scholar 

  51. Chadwick, R. et al. Euroscreen 2: Towards Community Policy on Insurance, Commercialization and Public Awareness. J. Med. Philos. 26, 263–272 (2001).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. McGleenan, T., Wiesing, U. & Ewald, F. (eds) Genetics and Insurance (BIOS Scientific, Oxford, 1999).

    Google Scholar 

  53. Chadwick, R. & Berg, K. Solidarity and equity: new ethical frameworks for genetic databases. Nature Rev. Genet. 2, 318–321 (2001).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. HUGO Ethics Committee. Statement on human genomic databases <http://www.gene.ucl.ac.uk/hugo/HEC_Dec02.html> (Human Genome Organisation, London, 2003).

  55. Titmus, R. M. The Gift Relationship: from Human Blood to Social Policy (Allen & Unwin, London, 1970).

    Google Scholar 

  56. Medical Research Council. Report of the Medical Research Council Working Group to develop operational and ethical guidelines, human tissue and biological samples for use in research (Medical Research Council, London, 1999).

  57. Annas, G. J. Rules for research on human genetic variation — lessons from Iceland. N. Engl. J. Med. 342, 1830–1833 (2000).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Medical Research Council. Human tissue and biological samples for use in research: operational and ethical guidelines (Medical Research Council, London, 2001).

  59. National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Research involving human biological materials: ethical issues and policy guidance (National Bioethics Advisory Commission, Springfield, 1999).

  60. Turney, J. Public understanding of science. Lancet 347, 1087–1090 (1996).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Kerr, A., Cunningham-Burley, S. & Amos, A. The new genetics and health: mobilising lay expertise. Public Underst. Sci. 7, 41–60 (1999).

    Google Scholar 

  62. Grove-White, R., Macnaghten, P., Mayer, S. & Wynne, B. Uncertain World: Genetically Modified Organisms, Food and Public Attitudes in Britain (IEPPP, Lancaster Univ., Lancaster, 1997).

    Google Scholar 

  63. Levitt, M. The Gene Shop: Evaluation of a Public Education Facility (Univ. Central Lancashire, Preston, 1998).

    Google Scholar 

  64. Lenaghan, J. Setting priorities: is there a role for citizen's juries? Br. J. Health Care Manage. 312, 1591–1593 (1996).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. European Commission. The Europeans and modern biotechnology. Eurobarometer 46 <http://sherlock.mcgill.ca/ENQ–10303/doc/cb6940.pdf> (1997).

  66. Chadwick, R. The Icelandic database — do modern times need modern sagas? BMJ 319, 441–444 (1999).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. Sveinbjornsdottir, S. et al. Familial aggregation of Parkinson's disease in Iceland. N. Engl. J. Med. 343, 1765–1770 (2000).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Knoppers, B. M. Of populations, genetics and banks. Genetics Law Monitor Jan/Feb, 3–6 (2001).

  69. Merz, J. F., McGee, G. E. & Sankar, P. “Iceland Inc.”?: on the ethics of commercial population genomics. Soc. Sci. Med. 58, 1201–1209 (2004).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Austin, M. A., Harding, S. & McElroy, C. Genebanks: a comparison of eight proposed international genetic databases. Community Genet. 6, 37–45 (2003).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Medical Research Council. BioBank UK consultation workshop (Medical Research Council, London, 2002).

  72. Haimes, E. What can the social sciences contribute to the study of ethics? Theoretical, empirical and substantive considerations. Bioethics 16, 89–113 (2002).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Weiss, K. M. et al. Proposed model ethical protocol for collecting DNA samples. Houst. Law Rev. 33, 1431–1474 (1997).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. International HapMap Project. About the International HapMap Project [online] <http://www.hapmap.org/abouthapmap.html.en> (2004).

  75. Parens, E. & Asch, A. The disability rights critique of prenatal genetic testing: reflections and recommendations. Hastings Center Rep. 29, S1–S22 (1999).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. Shakespeare, T. 'Losing the plot'? Medical and activist discourses of contemporary genetics and disability. Sociol. Health Illn. 21, 669–688 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Shakespeare, T. Arguing about disability and genetics. Interaction 13, 11–14 (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  78. Hull, R. Defining disability — a philosophical approach. Res. Publica. 4, 199–210 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. UNESCO International Bioethics Committee. Universal declaration on the human genome and human rights (UNESCO, Paris, 1997).

  80. Knoppers, B. M. in The Commercialization of Genetic Research: Ethical, Legal and Policy Issues (eds Caulfield, T. & Williams-Jones, B.) 1–11 (Kluwer Academic Plenum, New York, 1999).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  81. HUGO Ethics Committee. Statement on benefit sharing (Human Genome Organisation, London, 2000).

  82. Kaul, I., Grunberg, I. & Stern, M. Global Public Goods: International Cooperation in the 21st Century (Oxford Univ. Press, New York, 1999).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  83. UNESCO. Report by the Director-General on the work of the International Bioethics Committee (IBC) and the Intergovernmental Bioethics Committee (IGBC) (UNESCO, Paris, 2003).

  84. UNESCO. Report by the Director-General on the possibility of elaborating universal norms on bioethics (UNESCO, Paris, 2003).

  85. Editorial. Defining a new bioethic. Nature Genet. 28, 297–298 (2001).

  86. Husted, J. in The Right to Know and the Right Not to Know (eds Chadwick, R., Levitt, M. A. & Shickle, D.) 55–69 (Avebury Press, Aldershot, UK 1997).

    Google Scholar 

  87. Tucker, B. P. Deaf culture, cochlear implants, and elective disability. Hastings Center Rep. 28, 6–9 (1998).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  88. Lippman, A. Genetic testing and screening: constructing needs and reinforcing inequities. Amer. J. Law Med. 17, 15–50 (1991).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  89. McGleenan, T. in The Right to Know and the Right Not to Know (eds Chadwick, R., Levitt, M. A. & Shickle, D.) 43–54 (Avebury, Aldershot, UK, 1997).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the invaluable assistance of Yann Joly of the Genetics and Society Project, CRDP, University of Montreal (http://www.humgen.umontreal.ca).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre de recherche en droit public (CRDP), University of Montreal, C.P. 6128, succ. Centre-ville, Quebec, H3C 3J7, Canada

    Bartha Maria Knoppers

  2. Centre for the Economic and Social Aspects of Genomics, Furness College, Lancaster University, Lancaster, LA1 4YG, UK

    Ruth Chadwick

Authors
  1. Bartha Maria Knoppers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ruth Chadwick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bartha Maria Knoppers.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Related links

Related links

FURTHER INFORMATION

Eurobarometer

Human Genetics Commission

Human Genome Diversity Project

HumGen University of Montreal

International HapMap Project

National Bioethics Advisory Commission

President's Council on Ethics

Quebec CARTaGENE Project

UK Biobank

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Knoppers, B., Chadwick, R. Human genetic research: emerging trends in ethics. Nat Rev Genet 6, 75–79 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg1505

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg1505

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing