Matching Nutrigenomics, Society and Values

Chapter
Part of the The International Library of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Ethics book series (LEAF, volume 18)

Abstract

In the course of this book we stumbled upon so many ambiguities, controversies and uncertainties of the relationship between obesity, genomics and society that the time has come to try to find out their ethical meaning, in particular with respect to the improvement of the co-evolution of genomics and society. In discussing the current state of treatment of obesity, we found in Chapter 3 that there are at least three different ways of framing the problem of obesity: a Behaviour (individualizing and moralizing), an Environment (politicising and not individualizing) and a Body (individualizing but not moralizing) discourse.

Keywords

Technology Assessment Obese Person Fair Representation Ethical Assessment Personalized Nutrition 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Albano, M.G., Æ.C. Crozet and Æ.J.F. d’Ivernois (2008), Analysis of the 2004–2007 literature on therapeutic patient education in diabetes: Results and trends, Acta Diabetol, 45, 211–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beadle, G.W. and E.L. Tatum (1941 November), Genetic control of biochemical reactions in neurospora, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 27, 11, 499–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Buchler, J. (ed) (1955), Philosophical Writings of Peirce. New York, NY: DoverGoogle Scholar
  4. Easton, D., AM Deffenbaugh, D. Pruss (2007), A systematic genetic assessment of 1,433 sequence variants of unknown clinical significance in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 breast cancer-predisposition genes. The American Journal of Human Genetics, 81, 5, 873–888Google Scholar
  5. Est, R. v. and F. Brom (forthcoming), Technology Assessment as an Analytic and Democratic Practice, Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics, Amsterdam: ElsevierGoogle Scholar
  6. Grin, J., F. Felix, B. Bos and S. Spoelstra (2004), Practices for reflexive design: Lessons from a Dutch programme on sustainable agriculture, International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy, 1, 126–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hamlett, P. (2003), Technology, theory and deliberative democracy, Science, Technology and Human Values, 28, 1, 112–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Katan, M. (2010) Overheersende Toevalstreffers [Dominant Fluke], www.katan.nl [Accessed June 2010]Google Scholar
  9. Keulartz, J., M. Korthals, M. Schermer and T. Swierstra (2004), Ethics in a Technological Culture: A programmatic proposal for a pragmatist approach, Science, Technology and Human Values, 29, 1, 3–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Korthals, M. and R. Komduur (2009), Uncertainties of genomics and their ethical impact, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 23, doi: 10.1007/s10806-009-9223–0, 435–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. McVea, J.F. (2007), Constructing good decisions in ethically charged situations: The role of dramatic rehearsal, Journal of Business Ethics, 70, 375–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Monsen, E.R., H.Y. Vanderpoo, C.H. Halsted, K.W. McNutt and H.H. Sandstead (1991), Ethics: Responsible scientific conduct, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 54, 1–6Google Scholar
  13. Ng, P.C., S. Sarah, S. Levy Murray and J. Craig Venter (2009), An agenda for personalized medicine, Nature, 461, 724–726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Pearson, H. (2006), Genetics: What is a gene, Nature, 441, 398–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Piatigorsky, J. (2007), Gene Sharing and Evolution. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press Google Scholar
  16. Pitkin, H. (1967), The Concept of Representation. Berkeley, CA, University of California PressGoogle Scholar
  17. Rip, A., J.W. Schot and T.J. Misa (1995), Constructive technology assessment: A New paradigm for managing technology in society. Managing Technology in Society: The Approach of Constructive Technology Assessment. Londen: Pinter, pp. 1–12Google Scholar
  18. Sriram, G., J. Martinez, E. McCabe, J. Liao and K. Dipple (2005), Single-gene disorders: What role could moonlighting enzymes play?, The American Journal of Human Genetics, 76, 6, 911–924CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Applied PhilosophyWageningen UniversityWageningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations