Advertisement

Conclusion: Beyond Genomics and Obesity

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

Abstract

In this final chapter, first the main points will be summarized of this investigation into the relationship between genomics, society and obesity. We have seen that although obesity is a serious problem, it is also a much contested one, even with respect to the definition, the more so with respect to its diagnosis and treatment. Subsequently, the main ethical issues will be identified that emerge when genomics researchers do concentrate on obesity. We will delineate our main conclusions with respect to the shifting responsibilities in the broad field of stakeholders and the changes in the attribution of meaning that health and food are subjected to. Many aspects of genomics are ambiguous in a very fundamental sense; genomics researchers and professionals produce ambivalent results.

Keywords

Corporate Responsibility Genetic Responsibility Individual Consent European Medicine Evaluation Agency 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. Bajzer, M. and R.J. Seeley (2006), Obesity and gut flora, Nature, 444, 7122, 1009–1010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barnett, A.A (1996), New obesity pill approved by FDA, The Lancet, 347, 9011, 1321Google Scholar
  3. Beadle, G.W. and E.L. Tatum (1941), The genetic control of biochemical reactions in Neurospora. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 27: 499–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beaver, J.D., A.D. Lawrence, J. van Ditzhuijzen, M.H. Davis, A. Woods and A.J. Calder (2006), Individual differences in reward drive predict neural responses to images of food, The Journal of Neuroscience, 26, 19, 5160–5166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Breitstein, J. (2004), The making of a new disease. Pharma Exec. 1 Jan, http://www.pharmexec.com [Accessed June 2010]
  6. Check, E. (2007), Genome project turns up evolutionary surprises, Nature, 447, 760–761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Desiere, F. (2004), Towards a systems biology understanding of human health: Interplay between genotype, environment and nutrition, Biotechnology Annual Review, 10, 51–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Devlin, M.J. and J. Zhu (2001), Body image in the balance, JAMA, 286, 17, 2159Google Scholar
  9. ENCODE Project Consortium (2007), Identification and analysis of functional elements in 1% of the human genome by the ENCODE pilot project, Nature, 447, 799–816Google Scholar
  10. Enserink, M. (2010), European Watchdog Slashes Dubious Health Claims, Science, 327, 118Google Scholar
  11. Etchegary, H. (2009), Decision-making about inherited cancer risk: Exploring dimensions of genetic responsibility, Journal of Genetic Counseling, 18, 3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. FDA (2004), Innovation or Stagnation: Challenge and Opportunity on the Critical Path to New Medicinal Products, White Paper. http://www.fda.gov/oc/initiatives/criticalpath/whitepaper.pdf [Accessed June 2010]
  13. Fischer, F. (2000), Citizen, Experts, and the Environment: The Politics of Local Knowledge. London, Durham: Duke University PressGoogle Scholar
  14. House of Commons. (2005), The Influence of the Pharmaceutical Industry, Fourth Report of Session, 2004–2005, HC 42-I, London, UK: The Stationery Office LimitedGoogle Scholar
  15. Joppi, R., V. Bertele and S. Garattini (2005), Disappointing Biotech, BMJ, 331, 895–897CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Marshall, E. (2003), Preventing toxicity with a gene test, Science 302, 5645, pp. 588–590Google Scholar
  17. Mayer-Schönberger, V. (2009), Delete, The Virtue of Forgetting in the Digital Age. Princeton, Princeton University PressGoogle Scholar
  18. Nature Editorial (2006), Coping with complexity, Nature, 441, 25Google Scholar
  19. Payer, L. (1990), Disease-Mongers: How Doctors, Drug Companies, and Insurers Are Making You Feel Sick. New York, NY, WileyGoogle Scholar
  20. Pollack, A. (2010), Awaiting the Genome Payoff, New York Times, June 15, 2010Google Scholar
  21. WHO (Report 2003), Diet, Nutrition and the Prevention of Chronic Diseases Google Scholar
  22. Wolinsky, H. (2005), Disease mongering and drug marketing, Does the pharmaceutical industry manufacture diseases as well as drugs?, Nature, EMBO reports, 6, 7, 612–614Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Applied PhilosophyWageningen UniversityWageningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations