ReviewTrends in genetics : TIG2012
Human evolutionary genomics: ethical and interpretive issues.
Review in Trends in genetics : TIG, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Personalised Medicine: The Odyssey from Hope to Practice.Journal of personalized medicine · 2018Review
- Bioethics, population studies, and geneticophobia.Journal of community genetics · 2015Article
- 1000 Genomes Selection Browser 1.0: a genome browser dedicated to signatures of natural selection in modern humans.Nucleic acids research · 2014Article
- Ethical, legal, social, and policy implications of behavioral genetics.Annual review of genomics and human genetics · 2013Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Genome-wide computational studies can now identify targets of natural selection. The unique information about humans these studies reveal, and the media attention they attract, indicate the need for caution and precision in communicating results. This need is exacerbated by ways in which evolutionary and genetic considerations have been misapplied to support discriminatory policies, by persistent misconceptions of these fields and by the social sensitivity surrounding discussions of racial ancestry. We discuss the foundations, accomplishments and future directions of human evolutionary genomics, attending to ways in which the interpretation of good science can go awry, and offer suggestions for researchers to prevent misapplication of their work.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.