Ethical, Social and Legal Implications of Pharmacogenomics: A Critical Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: My aim was to examine the ethical, social and legal implications of pharmacogenomics. METHODS: I performed a critical review of the literature. The primary focal point is the bioethical principle discussed. The second outcome measure is the perspective of the discussion. RESULTS: This review documents that the pharmacogenomics issues of concern are comparable to issues concerning other genetic developments in general. However, two main issues are particular to the case of pharmacogenomics. Firstly, this review reveals that society, industry, groups and individuals appreciate the prospect of pharmacogenomics very differently. Secondly, there is a lack of research into the post-marketing implications of pharmacogenomics. CONCLUSION: An extensive focus on the ethical, social and legal implications of pharmacogenomics, in terms of both pre- as well as post-marketing issues, is essential. Also, a multidisciplinary approach which includes individual and group opinions in an upfront manner in the research and development process is essential. Otherwise, there is a substantial risk that the positive prospects of pharmacogenomics will not survive due to fear and a lack of acceptance and understanding on the part of the general public.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it