Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > A well placed trust? Public perceptions of the ...
View graph of relations

A well placed trust? Public perceptions of the governance of DNA databases.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Published

Standard

A well placed trust? Public perceptions of the governance of DNA databases. / Levitt, Mairi; Weldon, Sue.
In: Critical Public Health, Vol. 15, No. 4, 12.2005, p. 311-321.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Levitt M, Weldon S. A well placed trust? Public perceptions of the governance of DNA databases. Critical Public Health. 2005 Dec;15(4):311-321. doi: 10.1080/09581590500523186

Author

Levitt, Mairi ; Weldon, Sue. / A well placed trust? Public perceptions of the governance of DNA databases. In: Critical Public Health. 2005 ; Vol. 15, No. 4. pp. 311-321.

Bibtex

@article{e491e581594e45eabd5723381c1269d6,
title = "A well placed trust? Public perceptions of the governance of DNA databases.",
abstract = "Biobanks that are run on an opt-in basis depend on people having the motivation to give and to trust in those who control their samples. Yet in the UK trust in the healthcare system has been in decline and there have been a number of health-related scandals that have received widespread media and public attention. Given this background, and the previous public consultations on UK Biobank, the paper explores the way people express their trust and mistrust in the area of medical and genetic information through discussions in six focus groups held in different areas of Britain. The themes that emerged in the discussion were the special character of genetic data; the ease with which information spreads; the public/private divide in genetic research; the potential of genetic information to harm people; choice, consent and lack of control; and the difficulty of establishing trustworthy governing arrangements. The expert agenda of policy-makers and medical ethics does not address the broader concerns expressed by participants. It seems that public consultation and the language of openness and transparency may not be sufficient to establish trust in the governance of genetic databases. Donors will be asked to give freely without any return but the participants' perception of those using the samples is that they are motivated by success and profit rather than healthcare priorities. In this context altruism seems naive and even dangerous. In order to place their trust well people need evidence of a relationship with obligations and expectations on both sides.",
keywords = "UK Biobank genetic data choice transparency",
author = "Mairi Levitt and Sue Weldon",
year = "2005",
month = dec,
doi = "10.1080/09581590500523186",
language = "English",
volume = "15",
pages = "311--321",
journal = "Critical Public Health",
issn = "0958-1596",
publisher = "Routledge",
number = "4",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - A well placed trust? Public perceptions of the governance of DNA databases.

AU - Levitt, Mairi

AU - Weldon, Sue

PY - 2005/12

Y1 - 2005/12

N2 - Biobanks that are run on an opt-in basis depend on people having the motivation to give and to trust in those who control their samples. Yet in the UK trust in the healthcare system has been in decline and there have been a number of health-related scandals that have received widespread media and public attention. Given this background, and the previous public consultations on UK Biobank, the paper explores the way people express their trust and mistrust in the area of medical and genetic information through discussions in six focus groups held in different areas of Britain. The themes that emerged in the discussion were the special character of genetic data; the ease with which information spreads; the public/private divide in genetic research; the potential of genetic information to harm people; choice, consent and lack of control; and the difficulty of establishing trustworthy governing arrangements. The expert agenda of policy-makers and medical ethics does not address the broader concerns expressed by participants. It seems that public consultation and the language of openness and transparency may not be sufficient to establish trust in the governance of genetic databases. Donors will be asked to give freely without any return but the participants' perception of those using the samples is that they are motivated by success and profit rather than healthcare priorities. In this context altruism seems naive and even dangerous. In order to place their trust well people need evidence of a relationship with obligations and expectations on both sides.

AB - Biobanks that are run on an opt-in basis depend on people having the motivation to give and to trust in those who control their samples. Yet in the UK trust in the healthcare system has been in decline and there have been a number of health-related scandals that have received widespread media and public attention. Given this background, and the previous public consultations on UK Biobank, the paper explores the way people express their trust and mistrust in the area of medical and genetic information through discussions in six focus groups held in different areas of Britain. The themes that emerged in the discussion were the special character of genetic data; the ease with which information spreads; the public/private divide in genetic research; the potential of genetic information to harm people; choice, consent and lack of control; and the difficulty of establishing trustworthy governing arrangements. The expert agenda of policy-makers and medical ethics does not address the broader concerns expressed by participants. It seems that public consultation and the language of openness and transparency may not be sufficient to establish trust in the governance of genetic databases. Donors will be asked to give freely without any return but the participants' perception of those using the samples is that they are motivated by success and profit rather than healthcare priorities. In this context altruism seems naive and even dangerous. In order to place their trust well people need evidence of a relationship with obligations and expectations on both sides.

KW - UK Biobank genetic data choice transparency

U2 - 10.1080/09581590500523186

DO - 10.1080/09581590500523186

M3 - Journal article

VL - 15

SP - 311

EP - 321

JO - Critical Public Health

JF - Critical Public Health

SN - 0958-1596

IS - 4

ER -