ReviewThe international journal of neuropsychopharmacology2012
Ethics and neuropsychiatric genetics: a review of major issues.
Review in The international journal of neuropsychopharmacology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Use of next generation sequencing technologies in research and beyond: are participants with mental health disorders fully protected?BMC medical ethics · 2012Pooled it
- Presymptomatic Screening for Risks to Children's Mental Health : Ethical Considerations from a European Focus Group Study with Mental Health Professionals.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2026Article
- Ethical and social issues in prediction of risk of severe mental illness: a scoping review and thematic analysis.BMC psychiatry · 2025Article
- Ethics of early detection of disease risk factors: A scoping review.BMC medical ethics · 2024Article
- Psychosocial Basis of Human Sufferings and Poverty in Patients with Neurological and Psychiatric Disorders.Medical research archives · 2023Article
- Barriers to Using Legally Authorized Representatives in Clinical Research with Older Adults.Journal of Alzheimer's disease reports · 2023Article
- Concerns about the use of polygenic embryo screening for psychiatric and cognitive traits.The lancet. Psychiatry · 2022Review
- Addressing diversity and inclusion challenges in global neuro-psychiatric and behavioral genomics research.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Article
- Ethical issues in genomics research on neurodevelopmental disorders: a critical interpretive review.Human genomics · 2021Review
- Psychiatric genomics researchers' perspectives on best practices for returning results to individual participants.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2020Article
- Psychiatric genetics researchers' views on offering return of results to individual participants.American journal of medical genetics. Part B, Neuropsychiatric genetics : the official publication of the International Society of Psychiatric Genetics · 2019Article
- Article
- Potential use of clinical polygenic risk scores in psychiatry - ethical implications and communicating high polygenic risk.Philosophy, ethics, and humanities in medicine : PEHM · 2019Review
- Perspectives of psychiatric investigators and IRB chairs regarding benefits of psychiatric genetics research.Journal of psychiatric research · 2018Article
- Biomarkers in Psychiatry: Ethical Issues.Focus (American Psychiatric Publishing) · 2018Article
- Predictive Psychiatric Genetic Testing in Minors: An Exploration of the Non-Medical Benefits.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2018Article
- Ethical issues in neurogenetics.Handbook of clinical neurology · 2018Review
- Self-reported race and ethnicity of US biobank participants compared to the US Census.Journal of community genetics · 2017Article
- Article
- Genetic testing of children for predisposition to mood disorders: anticipating the clinical issues.Journal of genetic counseling · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Advances in neuropsychiatric genetics hold great hopes for improved prevention, diagnosis and treatment. However, the power of genetic testing to identify individuals at increased risk for disorders and to convey information about relatives creates a set of complex ethical issues. Public attitudes are inevitably affected by the shadow of eugenics, with its history of distorting scientific findings to serve socio-political ends. Nonetheless, the growing availability of genetic tests means that more patients will seek genetic information and physicians must manage the process of informed consent to allow meaningful decisions. Patients should be helped to understand the often-limited predictive power of current knowledge, potential psychological impact, risks of stigma and discrimination and possible implications for family members. Decisions for predictive testing of children raise additional concerns, including distortions of family dynamics and negative effects on children's self-image; testing is best deferred until adulthood unless preventive interventions exist. Pharmacogenomic testing, part of personalized medicine, may bring collateral susceptibility information for which patients should be prepared. The implications of genetic findings for families raise the question of whether physicians have duties to inform family members of implications for their health. Finally, participation in research in neuropsychiatric genetics evokes a broad range of ethical concerns, including the contentious issue of the extent to which results should be returned to individual subjects. As genetic science becomes more widely applied, the public will become more sophisticated and will be likely to demand a greater role in determining social policy on these issues.
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.