Skip to main content
Log in

Asking the Right Questions: Views on Genetic Variation Research Among Black and White Research Participants

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of General Internal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Genetic variation research (GVR) may raise concerns about misuse of information and discrimination. Seemingly contradictory positive views about GVR have also been reported.

Objective

To dissect this inconsistency, our objectives were to: (1) explore open-ended views of GVR and (2) quantify views of and willingness to participate in GVR by race.

Design

Cross-sectional study.

Participants

801 African-American and white prior participants in a case-control genetic epidemiology study of colon cancer risks (NCCCS).

Measures

Qualitative measures evaluated responses to questions about good and bad things about GVR. Quantitative measures evaluated positive and negative perceptions, perceptions of discrimination, and likelihood of future participation by race.

Results

Open-ended queries about GVR resulted in few “negative” responses. In closed-ended questions, however, African Americans were more likely to feel that such research would: result in higher insurance (41% vs. 30%, p = 0.008), not benefit minorities (29% vs. 14%, p=<0.001), reinforce racism (32% vs. 20%, p = 0.002), and use minorities as guinea pigs (27% vs. 6%, p < 0.001). Overall, after adjustment for potential confounding factors, African-American race remained inversely associated with feeling “very positive” about GVR (46% vs. 57%, p = 0.035). In contrast, African Americans were as likely as whites to express willingness to participate in future GVR studies (46%).

Conclusions

Open-ended questions about GVR were unlikely to spontaneously generate “negative” responses. In contrast, when presented specific examples of potentially negative implications, more respondents agreed, and minorities were more likely to express concerns. This suggests that while participants appear generally positive about GVR, their inability to articulate views regarding these complex concepts may require that researchers engage lay audiences, ensure accurate understanding, and provide them with language to express concerns.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Tate S, Goldstein D. Will tomorrow’s medicines work for everyone? Nature Genetics Supplement. 2004;36(11):534–42. November

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Bloche G. Race-Based Therapeutics. N Engl J Med. 2004;351(20):2035–7. November 11

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Bamshad M, Wooding S, Salisbury B, Stephens C. Deconstructuring the relationship between genetics and race. Nat Rev, Genet. 2004;5:596–609. August.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Condit C, Parrott R, Bates B, Bevan J, Achter P. Exploration of the impact of messages about genes and race on lay attitudes. Clin Genet. 2004;66:402–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Foster M, Sharp R. Beyond race: towards a whole-genome perspetive on human populations and genetic variation. Nat Rev, Genet. 2004;5:790–6. October

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Goodman A. Why Genes Don’t Count (for Racial Differences in Health). Am J Public Health. November 2000;90(11):1699–702.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Shields A, Fortun M, Hammonds E, et al. The Use of Race Variables in Genetic Studies of Complex Traits and the Goal of Reducing Health Disparities. Am Psychol. 2005;60(1):77–103. January

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Sankar P, Cho MK, Condit CM, et al. Genetic research and health disparities. JAMA. 2004;291(24):2985–9. Jun 23

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Sterling R, Henderson GE, Corbie-Smith G. Public willingness to participate in and public opinions about genetic variation research: a review of the literature. Am J Public Health. 2006;96(11):1971–8. Nov

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Bates BR, Lynch JA, Bevan JL, Condit CM. Warranted concerns, warranted outlooks: a focus group study of public understandings of genetic research. Soc Sci Med. 2005;60(2):331–44. Jan

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Dickson D. Public views genetic research cautiously. Nat Med. 2001;7(4):391. Apr

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Furr LA. Perceptions of genetics research as harmful to society: differences among samples of African-Americans and European-Americans.[see comment]. Genetic Testing. 2002;6(1):25–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Haddow G, Laurie G, Cunningham-Burley S, Hunter KG. Tackling community concerns about commercialisation and genetic research: a modest interdisciplinary proposal. Soc Sci Med. 2007;64(2):272–82. Jan

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Lassen J, Jamison A. Genetic technologies meet the public: the discourses of concern. Science Technology & Human Values. 2006;31(1):8–28. Jan

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Schulz A, Caldwell C, Foster S. What are they going to do with the information? Latino/Latina and African American Perspectives on the Human Genome Project. Health Educ Behav. 2003;30(2):151–69. April

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Siang S. Americans Concernced About Ethics, Morality of Scientific Research, Survey Shows. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2001;93(24):1841. December 19

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Henderson BJ, Maguire BT. Three lay models of disease inheritance. Soc Sci Med. 2000;50:293–301.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Achter P, Parrott R, Silk K. African Americans’ opinions about human-genetics research. Polit Life Sci. 2004;23(1):60–6. Mar

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Corbie-Smith G. The continuing legacy of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study: considerations for clinical investigation.[see comment]. Am J Medical Sciences. 1999;317(1):5–8. Jan

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Bevan J, Lynch J, Dubriwny T, et al. Informed lay preferences for delivery of racially varied pharmacogenomics. Genet Med. 2003;5(5):393–9. Sept/Oct

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Condit C. How the public understands genetics Non-deterministic and non-discrimanatory interpretations of the "blueprint" metaphor. Pub Understand Sci. 1999;8:169–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Foster M, Sharp R, Freeman W, Chino M, Bernsten D, Carter T. The Role of Community Review in Evaluating the Risks of Human Genetic Variation Research. Am J Hum Genet. 1999;64:1719–27. May 4

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the NIH-NHGRI grant 1-R01-HG002830. This project was also supported by grant no. P50HG004488 from the National Human Genome Research Institute.

Conflict of Interest

None disclosed.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jada Bussey-Jones M.D..

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bussey-Jones, J., Henderson, G., Garrett, J. et al. Asking the Right Questions: Views on Genetic Variation Research Among Black and White Research Participants. J GEN INTERN MED 24, 299–304 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-008-0883-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-008-0883-7

KEY WORDS

Navigation