Integrating genetics and social science: genetic risk scores

The sequencing of the human genome and the advent of low-cost genome-wide assays that generate millions of observations of individual genomes in a matter of hours constitute a disruptive innovation for social science. Many public use social science datasets have or will soon add genome-wide genetic data. With these new data come technical challenges, but also new possibilities. Among these, the lowest-hanging fruit and the most potentially disruptive to existing research programs is the ability to measure previously invisible contours of health and disease risk within populations. In this article, we outline why now is the time for social scientists to bring genetics into their research programs. We discuss how to select genetic variants to study. We explain how the polygenic architecture of complex traits and the low penetrance of individual genetic loci pose challenges to research integrating genetics and social science. We introduce genetic risk scores as a method of addressing these challenges and provide guidance on how genetic risk scores can be constructed. We conclude by outlining research questions that are ripe for social science inquiry.

Patent pools and diagnostic testing

There is increasing concern that overlapping patents in the field of genetics will create a costly and legally complex situation known as a patent thicket, which, along with the associated issues of accumulating royalty payments, can act as a disincentive for innovation. One potential means of preventing this is for the patent holders to enter into a so-called patent pool, such as those established in the electronics and telecommunications industries. Precedents for these also exist in the field of genetics, notably with the patents pertaining to the SARS genome. In this review, we initially address the patent pool concept in general and its application in genetics. Following this, we will explore patent pools in the diagnostic field in more detail, and examine some existing and novel examples of patent pools in genetics.

Single nucleotide polymorphism genotyping: biochemistry, protocol, cost and throughput

The large number of single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) markers available in the public databases makes studies of association and fine mapping of disease loci very practical. To provide information for researchers who do not follow SNP genotyping technologies but need to use them for their research, we review here recent developments in the fields. We start with a general description of SNP typing protocols and follow this with a summary of current methods for each step of the protocol and point out the unique features and weaknesses of these techniques as well as comparing the cost and throughput structures of the technologies. Finally, we describe some popular techniques and the applications that are suitable for these techniques.

Harnessing heredity in Gilded Age America: middle class mores and industrial breeding in a cultural context

By investigating the practices and beliefs of Gilded Age trotting horse breeders, this article demonstrates the relationship between industrial economic development and the growth of genetic reasoning in the United States. As most historians of biology already know, E. H. Harriman, Leland Stanford, and John D. Rockefeller not only transformed American business practice, they donated heavily to institutions that promoted eugenic research programs. What is not widely known, however, is that these same industrialists were accomplished trotting horse breeders with well-developed theories of inheritance. The article that follows uses these theories to place the rise of eugenic and genetic research into the context of the rapid development of industry in post Civil War America. Specifically, the study identifies how functional utility as defined through the narrow concerns of industrial practices were privileged over form and pedigree in American horse breeding. Even more importantly, this article suggests that the continuity established between the practices of the industrial philanthropists and the scientific research institutions that they established occurred at two levels: through the values privileged by the development of the dynamics of a mass society and through the tools used to process the large amounts of information necessary to understand breeding patterns in slow breeding organisms.

International gastroenterology research: subject areas, impact, and funding

AIMS

To examine the volume and potential impact of gastroenterology research outputs from 1985 to 1998 from 14 developed countries; the overlap with research in cancer, infectious diseases, and genetics; and the funding sources for this research. To determine if countries' research outputs correlated with their burden of corresponding diseases and inputs to their research.

METHODS

Selective retrieval of papers from the Science Citation Index and manual look up of a sample to determine funding sources. Classification of journals by four categories of research level (clinical/basic) and potential impact (low/high).

RESULTS

Gastroenterology represents about 8% of world biomedical research but over 11% in Italy, Japan, and Spain. Its potential impact is highest (but declining) for the USA. It has increased noticeably in most European countries, particularly in Finland. Gastroenterology research has become more clinical in Japan, Spain, Australia, and the Netherlands but more basic in Canada, Germany, Finland, Israel, and South Africa. Funding comes primarily from national governments, followed by national private non-profit sources and industry but little industrial funding occurs in some countries. There is a strong and positive correlation between reported deaths from gastrointestinal neoplasms and countries' outputs of research in gastrointestinal oncology.

CONCLUSIONS

Bibliometric analysis can reveal differences between countries in their research in a subject when a common methodology is applied to an international database. Variations in research methods in different countries can plausibly explain some of the variation in the potential impact of the work.

Commercialization of genetic research and its impact on the communication of results

Canada has recently seen significant commercial growth in biotechnology; at the same time we have witnessed a considerable reduction in public funding for research. One result is the development of partnerships between academic institutions and industry, which has had important effects on the relationships between researchers, companies, research subjects and society, particularly in the field of genetics. Commercialization of research creates obstacles to the diffusion of research results which is fundamental to the advancement of science. Several recent studies and cases, which are briefly reviewed here, have highlighted these problems. In this paper, the author examines clauses in research contracts in order to analyze and categorize the types of provisions these contracts may contain regarding publication and disclosure of research results. She then discusses the relationships between various actors in genetic research and the issues and conflicts that may arise. Finally, an examination of some recently developed policies in this area reveals the complex network of norms to which a researcher must adhere. The normative framework must take into account the interests of all the various actors, should apply to the broadest possible population, and its various parts must be consistent. Researchers must then be vigilant that they do not enter into contracts which conflict with their rights and obligations regarding publication and dissemination of results.

Academic-industry research relationships in genetics: a field apart

Academic-industry research relationships (AIRRS) have become widely accepted and increasingly common in the life sciences. Using nationwide surveys from the United States, we found significant differences between the AIRRs of genetics firms and faculty and those of other firms and faculty. Significantly more genetics than non-genetics firms funded AIRRs, and genetics firms' AIRRs were larger and longer. Genetics faculty with AIRRs were significantly more likely than non-genetics faculty to report that patents, licenses, new companies and trade secrets had resulted from their university research; and that they had refused to share research results of biomaterials with colleagues.