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:

Shaping science policy in the age of genomics

Abstract

The potential of genomic technologies for improving the diagnosis and treatment of many human diseases will not be fully realized until several ethical, legal and social issues are addressed by effective science policy. We believe that more widespread public debate and subsequent policy action are urgently required. Here, we discuss several mechanisms by which this might occur. We propose an independent genome policy organization as an additional approach to promoting informed science policy in the age of genomics.

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

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

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

Figure 1

References

  1. Guttmacher, A. E. & Collins, F. S. Genomic medicine — a primer. N. Engl. J. Med. 347, 1512–1520 (2002).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Collins, F. S. & McKusick, V. A. Implications of the Human Genome Project for medical science. JAMA 285, 540–544 (2001).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Waters, M. D., Olden, K. & Tennant, R. W. Toxicogenomic approach for assessing toxicant-related disease. Mutat. Res. 544, 415–424 (2003).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Khoury, M. J., McCabe, L. L. & McCabe, E. R. Population screening in the age of genomic medicine. N. Engl. J. Med. 348, 50–58 (2003).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Olden, K., Guthrie, J. & Newton, S. A bold new direction for environmental health research. Am. J. Public Health 91, 1964–1967 (2001).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Millikan, R. The changing face of epidemiology in the genomics era. Epidemiology 13, 472–480 (2002).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Olden, K. & Wilson, S. Environmental health and genomics: visions and implications. Nature Rev. Genet. 1, 149–153 (2000).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Collins, F. S., Green, E. D., Guttmacher, A. E. & Guyer, M. S. A vision for the future of genomics research. Nature 422, 835–847 (2003).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Burke, W. Genetic testing. N. Engl. J. Med. 347, 1867–1875 (2002).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Khoury, M. J., Burke, W. & Thomson, E. J. Genetics and Public Health in the 21st Century: Using Genetic Information to Improve Health and Prevent Disease (Oxford Univ. Press, New York, 2000).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Collins, F. S. & Watson, J. D. Genetic discrimination: time to act. Science 302, 745 (2003).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Weisfeld, N. E. Mapping public policy on genetics. Gene Ther. 9, 662–666 (2002).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Peterson, A. & Bunton, R. New Genetics and the New Public Health (Routeledge, New York, 2002).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Boyle, P. J. Shaping priorities in genetic medicine. Hastings Center Report 25, S2–S8 (1995).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Fuller, B. P. et al. Privacy in genetics research. Science 285, 1359–1361 (1999).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Rothenberg, K. H. & Terry, S. F. Human genetics. Before it's too late — addressing fear of genetic information. Science 297, 196–197 (2002).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Gerard, S., Hayes, M. & Rothstein, M. A. On the edge of tomorrow: fitting genomics into public health policy. J. Law Med. Ethics 30, 173–176 (2002).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Varmus, H. E. The challenge of making laws on the shifting terrain of science. J. Law Med. Ethics 28, 46–53 (2000).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Yarborough, M. & Sharp, R. R. Restoring and preserving trust in biomedical research. Acad. Med. 77, 8–14 (2002).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Schlesinger, A. M. The Cycles of American History (Houghton Mifflin, New York, 1999).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Capron, A. M. & Shapiro, R. Remembering Asilomar? Reexamining science's ethical and social responsibility. Perspect. Biol. Med. 44, 162–169 (2001).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Berg, P. et al. Potential biohazards of recombinant DNA molecules. Science 185, 303 (1974).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Weiner, C. Drawing the line in genetic engineering. Self-regulation and public participation. Perspect. Biol. Med. 44, 208–220 (2001).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. King, N. M. RAC oversight of gene transfer research: a model worth extending? J. Law Med. Ethics 30, 381–389 (2002).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Fredrickson, D. S. The first twenty-five years after Asilomar. Perspect. Biol. Med. 44, 170–182 (2001).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Berg, P. & Singer, M. The recombinant DNA controversy: twenty years later. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 92, 9011–9013 (1995).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Barinaga, M. Asilomar revisited: lessons for today? Science 287, 1584–1585 (2000).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Davatelis, G. N. The Asilomar process: is it valid? The Scientist 15, 51 (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Juengst, E. T. Human genome research and the public interest: progress notes from an American science policy experiment. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 54, 121–128 (1994).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Allen, A. Policing the gene machine: can anyone control the Human Genome Project? Lingua Franca 8, 29–36 (1997).

    Google Scholar 

  31. Cook-Deegan, R. M. The Gene Wars: Science, Politics, and the Human Genome (Norton, New York, 1994).

    Google Scholar 

  32. Juengst, E. T. The Human Genome Project and bioethics. Kennedy Inst. Ethics J. 1, 71–74 (1991).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Meslin, E. M., Thomson, E. J. & Boyer, J. T. The Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications Research Program at the National Human Genome Research Institute. Kennedy Inst. Ethics J. 7, 291–298 (1997).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Marshall, E. The genome project's conscience. Science 274, 488–490 (1996).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Juengst, E. T. Self-critical federal science? The ethics experiment within the U.S. Human Genome Project. Soc. Philos. Policy 13, 63–95 (1996).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Hudson, K. L., Rothenberg, K. H., Andrews, L. B., Kahn, M. J. & Collins, F. S. Genetic discrimination and health insurance: an urgent need for reform. Science 270, 391–393 (1995).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Reilly, P. Fear of genetic discrimination drives legislative interest. Human Genome News 8, 3–4 (1997).

    Google Scholar 

  38. ELSI Research Planning and Evaluation Group. A review and analysis of the ELSI research programs at the national institutes of health and the department of energy. National Human Genome Research Institute [online], <http://www.genome.gov/10001727> (2000).

  39. Harris Interactive. Public Awareness in the Age of Genomics [online], <http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/allnewsbydate.asp?NewsID=317> (2001).

  40. The Wellcome Trust. Review of the Wellcome Trust Biomedical Ethics Programme [online], <http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/en/1/pinbiorev.html> (2003).

  41. Braun, R. People's concerns about biotechnology: some problems and some solutions. J. Biotechnol. 98, 3–8 (2002).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. European Initiative for Biotechnology Education [online], <http://www.eibe.Info> (2004).

  43. HumGen [online], <http://www.humgen.umontreal.ca/en> (2004).

  44. Specter, M. The pharmageddon riddle. New Yorker 76, 58–71 (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  45. McHughen, A. Pandora's Picnic Basket: The Potential and Hazards of Genetically Modified Foods (Oxford Univ. Press, New York, 2000).

    Google Scholar 

  46. Gaskell, G., Bauer, M. W., Durant, J. & Allum, N. C. Worlds apart? The reception of genetically modified foods in Europe and the U.S. Science 285, 384–387 (1999).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Ferber, D. GM crops in the cross hairs. Science 286, 1662–1666 (1999).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Bosch, X. USA fights Europe's ban on genetically modified food. The Lancet 361, 1798 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  49. Bosch, X. GM foods in new dispute. The Lancet 362, 714 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  50. Mitchell, P. Europe angers US with strict GM labeling. Nature Biotechnol. 21, 6 (2003).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. World Trade Organization. European Communities — Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products [online], http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/dispu_subjects_index_e.htm#gmos> (2003).

  52. Kolata, G. Clone: The Road to Dolly and the Path Ahead (William Morrow and Company, New York, 1998).

    Google Scholar 

  53. Anderson, N. Human cloning success startles lawmakers. Los Angeles Times A13 (27 Nov 2001).

  54. Isasi, R. Database of Global Policies on Human Cloning and Germ-line Engineering [online], <http://www.glphr.org/genetic/genetic.Htm> (2003).

  55. Lenoir, N. Universal declaration on the human genome and human rights: the first legal and ethical framework at the global level. Columbia Human Rights Law Review 30, 537–561 (1999).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Carson, R. Silent Spring (Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 1962).

    Google Scholar 

  57. Whorton, J. Before Silent Spring: Pesticides and Public Health in Pre-DDT America (Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, 1974).

    Google Scholar 

  58. Graham, F. Since Silent Spring (Houghton-Mifflin, Boston, 1970).

    Google Scholar 

  59. Ashworth, W. The Carson Factor (Hawthorn Books, New York, 1979).

    Google Scholar 

  60. Hilgartner, S. Science on Stage: Expert Advice as Public Drama (Stanford Univ. Press, Stanford, California, 2000).

    Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Hellman, D. What makes genetic discrimination exceptional? Am. J. Law Med. 29, 77–116 (2003).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Zitner, A. Senate blocks genetic discrimination. Los Angeles Times 16 (15 Oct 2003).

  64. Nys, H. et al. Genetic Testing: Patient's Rights, Insurance and Employment — A Survey of Regulations in the European Union (Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxemborg, 2002).

    Google Scholar 

  65. Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology and Government. Science, Technology, and Congress: Organizational and Procedural Reforms: A Report of Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology, and Government (The Commission, New York, 1994).

  66. European Commission. Life Science and Biotechnology: A Strategic Vision [online], <http://europa.eu.int/comm/biotechnology/introduction_en.html> (2004).

  67. Shapiro, H. T. Reflections on the interface of bioethics, public policy and science. Kennedy Inst. Ethics J. 9, 209–224 (1999).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Yudell, M. A. Accounting for the fear factor. Genome Technol. 56 (2001).

  69. Terry, S. F. & Davidson, M. E. Empowering the public to be informed consumers of genetic technologies and services. Community Genet. 3, 148–150 (2000).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Ard, C. F. & Natowicz, M. R. A seat at the table: membership in federal advisory committees evaluating public policy in genetics. Am. J. Public Health 91, 787–790 (2001).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  71. Caulfield, T., Gold, E. R. & Cho, M. K. Patenting human genetic material: refocusing the debate. Nature Rev. Genet. 1, 227–231 (2000).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Knoppers, B. M. Status, sale and patenting of human genetic material: an international survey. Nature Genet. 22, 23–26 (1999).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Health Effects Institute [online], <http://www.healtheffects.org> (2004).

  74. Anderson, F. R. Science advocacy and scientific due process. Issues Sci. Technol. 16, 71–76 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  75. Schulte, P. A. & Lomax, G. Assessment of the scientific basis for genetic testing of railroad workers with carpal tunnel syndrome. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 45, 592–600 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  76. Weiss, R. Ignorance undercuts gene tests' potential. Washington Post A1 (2 Dec 2000).

  77. Greely, H. T. Human genomics research. New challenges for research ethics. Perspect. Biol. Med. 44, 221–229 (2001).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Wendler, D., Prasad, K. & Wilfond, B. Does the current consent process minimize the risks of genetics research? Am. J. Med. Genet. 113, 258–262 (2002).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Rothstein, M. A. & Epps, P. G. Pharmacogenomics and the (ir)relevance of race. Pharmacogenomics J. 1, 104–108 (2001).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Weijer, C. & Miller, P. B. Protecting communities in pharmacogenetic and pharmacogenomic research. Pharmacogenomics J. 4, 9–16 (2004).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Foster, M. W., Sharp, R. R. & Mulvihill, J. J. Pharmacogenetics, race, and ethnicity: social identities and individualized medical care. Ther. Drug Monit. 23, 232–238 (2001).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Silver, L. Remaking Eden: Cloning and Beyond in a Brave New World (Avon Books, New York, 1999).

    Google Scholar 

  83. Walters, L. & Palmer, J. G. The Ethics of Human Gene Therapy (Oxford Univ. Press, New York, 1997).

    Google Scholar 

  84. Rothman, D. & Rothman, S. The Pursuit of Perfection: The Promise and Perils of Medical Enhancement (Panthoen Books, New York, 2003).

    Google Scholar 

  85. Andrews, L. B. The Clone Age: Adventures in the New World of Reproductive Technology (Henry Holt, New York, 1999).

    Google Scholar 

  86. Leary, W. E. Panel urges caution in producing gene-altered animals. New York Times A12 (21 Aug 2002).

Download references

Acknowledgements

The work reported in this publication was supported in part by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the National Human Genome Research Institute. Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the National Human Genome Research Institute or the National Institutes of Health. The authors wish to thank R. DeSalle and D. Rosner for their thoughtful comments on earlier versions of the paper, and M. Sander for her editorial assistance.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Related links

Related links

DATABASES

Database of Global Policies on Human Cloning and Germ-line Engineering

FURTHER INFORMATION

European Initiative for Biotechnology Education

National Council of State Legislators. Genetic Laws and Legislative Activity

Wellcome Trust Biomedical Ethics Programme

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sharp, R., Yudell, M. & Wilson, S. Shaping science policy in the age of genomics. Nat Rev Genet 5, 311–315 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg1320

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg1320

This article is cited by

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