Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T22:37:02.237Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Normative Theorizing about Genetics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 August 2013

COLIN FARRELLY
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Responses and Dialogue
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 22 , Issue 4 , October 2013 , pp. 408 - 419
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Loi, M. On the very idea of genetic justice: Why Farrelly’s pluralistic prioritarianism cannot tackle genetic complexity. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2012;21(1):64–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2. See note 2, Loi 2012, at 75.

3. In particular Loi focuses on the following: Farrelly, C.Genes and social justice: A Rawlsian reply to Moore. Bioethics 2002;16:72–83CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Farrelly, C.The genetic difference principle. American Journal of Bioethics 2004;4:W21–W28CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Farrelly, C. Genetic justice must track genetic complexity. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2008;17(1):45–53CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; and Farrelly, C. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis, reproductive freedom, and deliberative democracy. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 2009;34(2):135–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

4. See note 3, Farrelly 2004.

5. Rawls, J. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6. Daniels, N. Just Health Care. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1985.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

7. See note 2, Loi 2012, at 69.

8. Arneson, RJ. Luck egalitarianism and prioritarianism. Ethics 2000;110(2):339–49, at 340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9. See, for example, Buchanan, A, Cole, T, Keohane, RO. Justice in the diffusion of innovation. Journal of Political Philosophy 2011;19(3):306–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10. Perls, T, Bubrick, E, Wager, C, Vijg, J, Kruglyak, L. Siblings of centenarians live longer. The Lancet 1998;351:1560.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

11. Atzmon, G, Schechter, C, Greiner, W, Davidson, D, Rennert, G, Barzilai, N. Clinical phenotype of families with longevity. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2004;52:274–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

12. Van der Zwaluw, CS, Kuntsche, E, Engels, R. Risky alcohol use in adolescence: The role of genetics (DRD2, SLC6A4) and coping motives. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research 2011;35(4):756–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

13. Deary, IJ, Spinath, FM, Bates, TC. Genetics of intelligence. European Journal of Human Genetics 2006;14:690–700.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

14. Meyer-Lindenberg, A, Buckholtz, JW, Kolachana, B, Hariri, AR, Pezawas, L, Blasi, G, et al. Neural mechanisms of genetic risk for impulsivity and violence in humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2006;103(16):6269–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

15. Fowler, J, Dawes, C. Two genes predict voter turnout. Journal of Politics 2008;70(3):579–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Fowler, J, Baker, L, Dawes, C. Genetic variation in political participation. American Political Science Review 2008;102:233–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

16. Young, L. Love: Neuroscience reveals all. Nature 2009;457:148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

17. “The pursuit of science in a society is well-ordered when the research effort is efficiently directed toward the questions that are most significant”: Flory, JH, Kitcher, P. Global health and the scientific research agenda. Philosophy and Public Affairs 2004;32(1):36–65, at 59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

18. See note 3, Farrelly 2008, at 49.

19. Sack, GH. Medical Genetics. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1999, at 149.Google Scholar

20. Cystic Fibrosis Foundation. Frequently Asked Questions; available at http://www.cff.org/AboutCF/Faqs/#What_is_the_life_expectancy_for_people_who_have_CF_%28in_the_United_States%29 (last accessed 27 July 2011).

21. Thorgeirsson, TE, et al. A variant associated with nicotine dependence, lung cancer and peripheral arterial disease. Nature 2008;452:638–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

22. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Results from the 2005 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: National Findings. Rockville, MD: Office of Applied Studies; 2006. The survey results are available online at http://oas.samhsa.gov/nsduh/2k5nsduh/2k5results.htm (last accessed 27 July 2011).

23. Kruger, DJ, Nesse, RM. Sexual selection and the male:female mortality ratio. Evolutionary Psychology 2004;2:66–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

24. Loi constructs a second scenario, but, because of space limitations, I limit my response to this first scenario. Much of what I say about the first example would also apply to his second scenario.

25. See, for example, Farrelly, C. Global aging, well-ordered science and prospection. Rejuvenation Research 2010;13(5):607–12CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Farrelly, C. Why aging research? Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 2010;1197:1–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; and Farrelly, C. Has the time come to take on time itself? British Medical Journal 2008;337:147–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar