ReviewMedicine, health care, and philosophy2001
Ethical boundary work: geneticization, philosophy and the social sciences.
Review in Medicine, health care, and philosophy, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Geneticization in the genomic era: a scoping review of ethical, clinical, and sociocultural transformations.Frontiers in sociology · 2025Review
- The Geneticization of Education and Its Bioethical Implications.Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics : CQ : the international journal of healthcare ethics committees · 2024Article
- Converging approaches to understanding early onset familial Alzheimer disease: A First Nation study.SAGE open medicine · 2015Article
- Geneticization and bioethics: advancing debate and research.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2007Article
- Genetic tools, Kuhnean theoretical shift and the geneticization process.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2006Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper is a response to Henk ten Have's "Genetics and Culture: The Geneticization thesis". In it, I refute Ten Have's suggestion that geneticization is not the sort of process that can be measured and commented on in terms of empirical evidence, even if he is correct in suggesting that it should be seen as part of 'philosophical discourse'. At the end, I relate this discussion to broader debates within bioethics between the social science and philosophy, and suggest the need for philosophical approaches to take the social sciences seriously.
Indexed as
Identifiers
11760230What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.