ArticleNTM2019
[The Emergence of Genetic Prenatal Diagnosis from Environmental Research : On a Methodological Shift in Prevention Around 1970].
Article in NTM, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
- Choosing the best apple: counselling leaflets and technologies of communication in the history of reproduction.Medical humanities · 2023Article
- [Oral history of German human genetics: historical research methods for collecting and processing narrative interviews].Medizinische Genetik : Mitteilungsblatt des Berufsverbandes Medizinische Genetik e.V · 2021Article
- Article
- [The Nest as Environment. A Historical Epistemology of the Nesting Instinct in Pregnancy].NTM · 2021Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The history of genetic prenatal diagnosis has so far been analyzed as a part of the history of human genetics and its reorientation as a clinical and laboratory-based scientific discipline in the second half of the 20th century. Based on new source material, we show in this paper that the interest in prenatal diagnosis also arose within the context of research on mutagenicity (the capacity to induce mutations) that was concerned with environmental dangers to human health. Our analysis of the debates around the establishment of the German Research Foundation's (DFG) research program "Prenatal Diagnosis of Genetic Defects" reveals that amniocentesis was introduced in Western Germany by a group of scientists working on the dangers for the human organism caused by radiation, pharmaceuticals, and other substances and consumer goods. We argue that, in a period of growing environmental concern, the support of prenatal diagnosis aimed to close a perceived gap in the prevention of environmental mutagenicity, i. e. genetic anomalies induced by environmental factors. The expected financing of prenatal diagnosis by health insurance in the course of the reform of abortion rights was used as another argument for the new technology's introduction as a "defensive measure". Only in a second step did changes in research structures, but most importantly experience from gynecological practice lead to a reframing of the technology as a tool for the diagnosis and prevention of mostly genetic or spontaneously occurring anomalies. Eventually, prenatal diagnosis, as it became routinely used in Western Germany from the early 1980s onward, had little to do with "environmental" questions. This case study of the early history of genetic prenatal diagnosis analyzes the still poorly researched relationship between research in human genetics, environmental research and medical practice. Furthermore, we aim to shed new light on a shift in perspective in prevention around 1970 that has so far been described in different contexts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30783691What 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.